Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.
Comments
-
Oh they're absolutely not. I associate the really toxic stuff with people who aren't trans. The poster I quoted isn't.
1 -
Certainly, that poster has a long history of the most extreme misogyny, long before any thread on trans activism appeared.
0 -
Annasopra? No I don't think so. They're a feminist, which makes their doublethink all the more frustrating.
1 -
The post naming Fallon Fox was aimed at me though to inform me that it might help me understand why I am in such a minority in thinking biological males should be allowed beat the crap out of biological females, and how one defines oneself has nothing to do with it as I well know but won’t admit -
I ignored it completely because I have never argued that anyone should be allowed beat the crap out of anyone for starters. I had also said earlier in the thread that Fallon Fox is a menace who should be excluded from the sport. I also pointed out that the very same damage, and much worse, is inflicted upon women in the sport already, by other women -
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/boxing/disfigured-female-fighters-boxing-gutierrez-25793685.amp
I don’t want to see that happen to anyone, regardless of their sex or gender or any of the rest of it. It’s disgusting and it’s wrong.
I also pointed out that in spite of Fox’s claims, it was the trash talk that’s expected of fighters in the sport, and no, it’s not pretty or anything else, but it’s focused on being taken seriously because Fallon Fox is transgender. Their attitude, while abhorrent, is what’s expected of athletes in the sport, machismo and bravado and all the rest of it. The claim however, that they fractured anyone’s skull, is simply not true -
0 -
That link is to a biased site. Didn't Fox themselves ("don't misgender the violent person") confirm it?
0 -
Advertisement
-
Biased in what way? All sides have claimed the site is biased, and the site has been independently reviewed, and they provide links to their sources -
PolitiFact has won the Pulitzer Prize, and has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives and liberals alike. Both liberal and conservative bias have been alleged at different points, and criticisms have been made that PolitiFact attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". A survey of 511 stories from 2010 to 2011 found that statements made by Republicans were almost three times as likely to be labeled as false as those of Democrats. A larger 2016 analysis by the American Press Institute found that PolitiFact was statistically more likely to be critical of Republicans, while a text analysis by the University of Washington in 2018 was "not able to detect any systematic differences in the treatment of Democrats and Republicans in articles by Politifact", but noted that the analysis "cannot determine whether there are partisan biases in Politifact’s judgments about truthfulness nor selection of which statements to examine."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact
(I know Wiki can be edited by anyone too, but it’s handy as a jump-off point which also provides sources)
The point is that while Fallon Fox did claim they broke a woman’s skull, and ‘confirmed’ it themselves, bragging about it on social media and knowingly goading people who they knew were disgusted by their behaviour and their attitude, the facts themselves refute Fallon’s claims.
It’s sort of like the way Milo Yiannopulos (remember him? Nobody else does either!) made a career out of being a caustic asshole, or a figure of public hatred - because he made a lot of money out of it. When he went that one step too far and claimed he’d been abused by a priest and he enjoyed it, he overplayed the theatrics and lost the support of people who never liked him in the first place, but loved the fact that he was winding up other groups of people they despised. Fallon Fox enjoyed the same notoriety for a while, until they too overplayed the theatrics.
0 -
Ah OK, fair enough. Crikey, bit unhinged.
Yeah Milo, what a toxic piece of work. Also unhinged.
1 -
Expecting a woman to dress in a certain way is nothing like expecting women competing against each other in sports to actually be females. The very real biological differences between the sexes are not "gender stereotypes". Ridiculous to try and conflate the two things.
5 -
They’re exactly alike, because they’re based upon the same principles of determining an ideal standard and then excluding anyone from the group who doesn’t meet that ideal standard.
I didn’t say the very real biological differences between the sexes were “gender stereotypes”, so the idea that I was trying to conflate them doesn’t arise - I was explicit in differentiating between the two. If you want to go in the direction of biological differences, then it can’t simply be limited to sex, and it should be obvious that there are very real biological differences between individuals, which is the whole basis of competition!
What’s ridiculous is comparing transgender athletes performance to women in the general population, when their performance should be compared to elite women athletes, as that would be at least a valid comparison. Can’t do that though because there simply isn’t sufficient data on transgender athletes to make a valid comparison.
And that’s just considering the potential biological factors, it doesn’t consider the social factors, because that’d be inconvenient when their aim is, and always was, to exclude anyone who didn’t meet the ideal standards and expectations set by the governing bodies of the sports based upon their ideas of sex stereotypes based upon gender. They’re stereotypes, they’re not real, they’re an ideal.
I don’t know what else you’d call it, other than policing, if anyone imagines they have the authority to determine for anyone who isn’t them that if they don’t conform to that person’s ideal, they’re not either a woman or a man, whatever the case may be.
I hardly need to give you a second guess as to who would be the losers if everyone in society was suddenly granted that right, but I’ll give you a hint - it wouldn’t be men.
0 -
defining what is a woman for the purpose of sport.
Even the people who are coming up with these new rules would bristle at that description plodder 😁
They’ll be the first to correct anyone who would even suggest that they’re trying to define what a woman is for the purposes of sport, by saying that the new rules are for the purposes of determining who is eligible to participate in the women’s categories in any particular sports, or particular events within the sport.
It's effectively the same thing. Saying what a woman is for the purpose of sport, and not necessarily even all sport, is conceding that someone can be called and be treated as a woman in other circumstances. The policing of language is one of the most tedious aspects of the whole issue.
Policing how women ought to behave is a very different issue compared to defining what is a woman for the purpose of sport.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Aye, sports are played with the body - not gender.
8 -
The policing of language is one of the most tedious aspects of the whole issue.
It is, but here we are using terms like “biological males”, “biological females”, “male bodied”, “female bodied”, “adult human females”, “transgender woman” is not a woman, even though that’s what the term implies, and oh good God the pronouns… yep, tedious alright.
But I understand it’s importance when organisations like World Athletics need to pass off pseudoscientific garbage as having any scientific validity whatsoever.
Policing how women ought to behave is a very different issue compared to defining what is a woman for the purpose of sport.
It’s really not. Fundamentally it’s exactly the same thing. Not you personally, but the attempt is made to discriminate between athletes who conform to expectations of sex stereotypes, and athletes who do not, and exclude those athletes who do not, regardless of their claim that they are a woman. It’s tedious for sure, and I understand what you meant of course, but to some people these distinctions are important to argue support for their beliefs.
Sports aren’t just played with the body, the mind is just as equally important in any sport as the body. It’s why there is an increasing focus on support for athletes mental as well as their physical health. It’s also why some people are of the opinion that an athlete who changed their attire between races affected their performance to the degree that she came last -
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/other-sports/alica-schmidt-german-athletics-model-27770172
Still… the title of “Worlds sexiest athlete”, gotta count for something 🙄
0 -
They’re exactly alike, because they’re based upon the same principles of determining an ideal standard and then excluding anyone from the group who doesn’t meet that ideal standard.
When the group is - people of the female sex, they aren't from the group. That's the whole point.
I didn’t say the very real biological differences between the sexes were “gender stereotypes”, so the idea that I was trying to conflate them doesn’t arise - I was explicit in differentiating between the two. If you want to go in the direction of biological differences, then it can’t simply be limited to sex, and it should be obvious that there are very real biological differences between individuals, which is the whole basis of competition!
It isn't only differentiated by sex. Age is a factor too. It's important to point that out because it shows that whatever factors we need to differentiate elite sport on, we already do. They are the only two factors that matter.
What’s ridiculous is comparing transgender athletes performance to women in the general population, when their performance should be compared to elite women athletes, as that would be at least a valid comparison. Can’t do that though because there simply isn’t sufficient data on transgender athletes to make a valid comparison.
There's enough data to make people realise that elite sport is about the human body and what can be done with it. It's not about gender identity and it's not about finding ways to handicap trans women so they only win some of time. That ship has sailed.
And that’s just considering the potential biological factors, it doesn’t consider the social factors, because that’d be inconvenient when their aim is, and always was, to exclude anyone who didn’t meet the ideal standards and expectations set by the governing bodies of the sports based upon their ideas of sex stereotypes based upon gender. They’re stereotypes, they’re not real, they’re an ideal.
The rules of sport, which is what we are discussing, are differentiated by sex and age, not by social factors. Social factors may strongly influence access to and success at sport. But, that is a different issue. I don't think anyone has seriously suggested altering the rules of any sport to account for social differences. There are many other (better) ways to address that.
I don’t know what else you’d call it, other than policing, if anyone imagines they have the authority to determine for anyone who isn’t them that if they don’t conform to that person’s ideal, they’re not either a woman or a man, whatever the case may be.
I hardly need to give you a second guess as to who would be the losers if everyone in society was suddenly granted that right, but I’ll give you a hint - it wouldn’t be men.
Look at who is losing out over the recent rule changes in swimming, cycling and rugby. They are all people of the male sex, not females.
0 -
When the group is - people of the female sex, they aren't from the group. That's the whole point.
The actual point though, is how that group is defined, and as tedious and all as it is, that’s based upon a number of factors, and whatever the organisation considers relevant isn’t necessarily what the laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate, consider relevant.
It isn't only differentiated by sex. Age is a factor too. It's important to point that out because it shows that whatever factors we need to differentiate elite sport on, we already do. They are the only two factors that matter.
Those are the only two factors which matter as far as you’re concerned. However, and I know you’re busy so don’t have time for a long reply, but you should take some time to read the reams of laws involved in just the sport of rugby according to the IRFU, or World Athletics policies regarding participation in the sport, or the IOCs reams of rules which go well beyond factors such as age and sex. It’s almost as though they recognise that they’re not operating within a closed system where they are a law unto themselves, and they have to recognise that they are operating within legal frameworks like human rights and so on. That’s without even getting into the financial factors, which may not matter to you, but they matter a great deal to other people!
There's enough data to make people realise that elite sport is about the human body and what can be done with it. It's not about gender identity and it's not about finding ways to handicap trans women so they only win some of time. That ship has sailed.
There’s not enough data when there is an attempt to limit the data in order to maintain people’s beliefs one way or the other about the human body and what can be done with it, precisely to handicap those people who do not conform to an ideal standard so that there is no chance of them even participating, let alone competing, let alone winning anything. Simply declaring that ship has sailed doesn’t appear to have stopped anyone from continuing to challenge the rules which they don’t support. If anyone gave up that easily, it wouldn’t have led to the IOC changing their position on the issues involved.
The rules of sport, which is what we are discussing, are differentiated by sex and age, not by social factors. Social factors may strongly influence access to and success at sport. But, that is a different issue. I don't think anyone has seriously suggested altering the rules of any sport to account for social differences. There are many other (better) ways to address that.
We’re not just discussing the rules of sport though, there are a whole plethora of issues involved. Just because you want to limit the discussion to the factors which suit your argument doesn’t mean anyone else is obligated to operate under your restrictions which suits your purposes. As an example, the rules of sport also includes nationality, and who is or isn’t eligible to play for their national team, and qualifying for the Olympics is based upon athletes representing their nations, not just their sex or their age. There are plenty of people advocating for changing the rules of sports based upon social factors, to try and encourage more people who wouldn’t ordinarily have access to any sport to become involved in the sport. There are for sure plenty of ways of addressing social inequalities in sports, and changing the rules is just one of them, that doesn’t mean we can’t implement other policies at the same time to increase participation and inclusion in any sport.
Look at who is losing out over the recent rule changes in swimming, cycling and rugby. They are all people of the male sex, not females.
I am looking at who’s losing out already, we’re just not looking at the same people -
https://www.bbc.com/sport/53593465.amp
It’s precisely for this reason that I pointed out men wouldn’t lose out to women, because they’d make sure of it, even changing the rules of the sport on the fly to suit themselves, under the pretence that it’s for women’s benefit, and totally not for their own benefit of maintaining their dominance in the sports industry so that it’s they who will keep making the rules, which, by no small coincidence whatsoever - suit themselves.
That’s why Seb Coe got all animated and dismissed the opinions of people whom he called “second-rate sociologists”, because it wouldn’t do to be presented with any evidence which might contradict his beliefs -
Coe said it was his responsibility to "protect the integrity of women's sport".
"We have two categories in our sport: one is age and one is gender," added the World Athletics President.
"Age because we think it's better that Olympic champions don't run against 14-year-olds in community sports and gender because if you don't have a gender separation, no woman would ever win another sporting event."
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1125956/caster-semenya-sebastian-coe-eugene
And don’t worry, I’m not going to quibble with you over the fact that the only two factors which are important as far as you’re concerned are age and sex, while the factors which Seb refers to are age and gender. As I pointed out already - both terms are commonly used interchangeably to refer to the same concept, and that’s just in the English language!
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 18019
As the transition process doesn't remove the male physical advantage then transwomen have an unfair advantage when competing in the female category. This has been shown so it's not my opinion or what I think. It's a fact.
3 -
Except that it is precisely your opinion based upon evidence which doesn’t stand up to any sort of scientific scrutiny. Essentially what they’ve shown is that they were able to make the findings fit their opinions which they had already established as fact.
At it’s most basic level, it would be like me saying “apples are green, they grow in orchards, that’s a fact”, and then you turn up with a red apple from the store and I say “that’s not an apple, it’s been shown that apples are green and they grow in orchards, that’s a fact, and that, whatever it is, is not an apple!”
It’s basically you’ve decided to attribute characteristics to males and females based upon standards you’re familiar with, and to hell with anything which contradicts your opinions. Science isn’t nearly so simplistic as that, and neither is language. The fact scientists are making new discoveries which are overturning old assumptions all the time is what makes it interesting, particularly the language that’s used in describing and presenting their findings -
https://phys.org/news/2009-12-ovaries-suppress-male.amp
And while the concept of “the female prostate” is an interesting one -
https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(02)70196-8/fulltext
There’s still no consensus within scientific circles as to whether or not it exists at all -
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21740-yes-yes-no-g-spot-finding-fails-to-convince/
Much like the way you refer to “the transition process” as though it’s a process which every person who is transgender goes through, we know that in reality most don’t opt for medical or surgical interventions, so your data is reliant upon the limited number that do, and even then they were working off fitness data obtained from old employment records that were 10 years out of date, as opposed to testing specifically for athletic performance.
The data used by the WA to support their policies was also completely unrelated to the performance of transgender athletes in sports, so all the talk of “the male physical advantage” and “transwomen” and “unfair advantages”, that’s all political rhetoric, much like the claim that the separation in sports based upon gender is necessary and without it women would never win another event…
Except that’s not actually a fact at all, is it? It’s hysterical rhetoric and scaremongering for the purposes of discrediting anyone who would seek to challenge the rules, kinda like calling anyone a misogynist when they point out women in sports are already being treated like shìt.
0 -
If we were to completely do away with sex or gender segregation and move to just one category open to everyone - wouldn't matter if you were male, female, trans or intersex- no one would be discriminated against, everyone gets to participate against each other, which seems to be what some people want, wouldn't this essentially lead to women being pushed out of most elite sports.
0 -
No, it would lead to the opposite -
The participation of girls and women in sports has brought about numerous immediate and long-term benefits that have a lasting impact on both the female gender and the society at large. Some of the different provisions of the 'Title IX' include equality in the different sports fields for both sexes. Essentially, as described on the U.S. Department of Education's website, this provision "protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance". Title IX's goal was to bolster sports programs and opportunities in order to ensure that more people could become active in sports; and "contrary to the myth, Title IX has not starved men's athletic programs. Since Title IX was enacted, the number of men's and women's teams has grown and the number of men and women playing sports has risen". However, it is important that such provisions do not necessarily imply that equal amounts are spent on sports activities and matters for both sexes and athletic opportunities for boys and men to be reduced but simply means that both women and girls should not be discouraged and denied any sports opportunities. But there are still thousands of schools across the county are not in compliance with Title IX. The law covers all educational activities that receive public funding, so even though sports receive little public funding, they are still subject to Title IX, and are the most well-known application of the law. Opponents of the law say that has led to a break down of men's sports, pointing to the number of schools and institutions that have dropped sports since the enactment of Title IX, such as wrestling and cross-country.
Prior to the law, only 295,000 girls participated in high school sports and they received only 2% of the athletic budget. In 2016–2017, that number had risen to 3.4 million girls playing high school sports across the country.
0 -
All good to know, but, doesn't answer my original question of whether it would push women out of elite sports if everyone competed in the same category, in my opinion elite women would struggle against elite men and would eventually lead to women disappearing from elite sports which would have a knock on effect down the line. That's my opinion, I know others might see it differently, but, with the exception of a few sports, elite men outperform elite women by a significant margin that I think is virtually impossible for women to close.
3 -
That comment proves that you don't give a f*ck about women.
2 -
Advertisement
-
It was by way of answering your question by demonstrating that previously when women and girls were excluded from sports, it was because at the time they were thought to be incapable of competing with men, that men were superior and all the rest of it, and yet that hasn’t been shown to be the case with increasing numbers of women participating in sports as a result of barriers which prohibited their participation being removed.
Women don’t have to compete with men, men don’t have to compete with women, and so the idea that either sex would dominate the other is without foundation when in reality there are numerous other factors involved in whether anyone has the opportunity to become an elite athlete who could actually make a career for themselves in any sport.
Participation rates in some sports might fall off, or those sports might become entirely obsolete (I’m hoping this happens at some point with the sports that are more akin to human cockfighting, such as MMA and boxing, but it seems unlikely with the huge amounts of money involved in promoting these types of sports), but there’s nothing to support the idea that women’s opportunities to become elite athletes and make careers for themselves is in any way threatened by men’s participation in women’s events or vice versa. Given women make up about 50% of the population, and men about the same 50%, and somewhere between them there’s a crossover of less than 2% of the population who are transgender, and given that we know increased investment increases participation, it’s a reach to suggest that women would have less opportunities to become elite athletes.
The USTA had the same fears back in the 70’s when Renee Richards fought for their right to play in the women’s tournaments -
Sources close to the U.S.T.A. believe the association may not contest Dr. Richards's right to play this year and then appeal yesterday's court decision at a later date. The U.S.T.A. concern, according to sources, is more over the long‐range implications of transsexuals in women's tennis than the threat of player who is probably past her prime as a professional.
This was the opinion of the Judge in that case -
“When an individual such as plaintiff, a successful, physician, a husband and father, finds it necessary for his own mental sanity to undergo a sex reassignment,” Ascione wrote, “the unfounded fears and misconceptions of defendants must give way to the overwhelming medical evidence that this person is now female.”
“This court is not striking down the Barr body test, as it appears to be recognized and acceptable tool for determining sex,” Ascione wrote, referring to the test that Dr. Richards failed on two occasions earlier this year in an attempt to play in the Italian and French championships. “However, it is not and should not be the sole criterion where, as here, the circumstances warrant consideration of other factors.”
There has been no great flood of men wanting to play in the women’s tournaments since then, and that was over 40 years ago. I’m also fully aware that since then, Richards has pulled the ladder up after themselves. The point I’m making is that we’re talking about an infinitesimally small proportion of the population here, and even within that less than 2%, they’re not all going to have the same interest in the same sports, so the sports don’t actually have to change massively at all, nor do the rules, nor do the categories, but consideration of all factors involved should be the means by which an athlete who wants to, should be able to participate in sports in accordance with their preferred gender, as opposed to assuming they shouldn’t be permitted to participate because they’re going to be knocking women out left, right and centre, and those women who haven’t been knocked out have already sprinted off the field of play, if they ever turned up at all once they got wind of who they’d be competing against!
A far greater influential factor in their participation and performance is the belief that women shouldn’t participate in sports. That attitude doesn’t come from within women themselves, it comes from an external attitude which is pervasive in wider society.
There’s nothing stops women from becoming elite athletes and competing with men on an equal footing only arbitrary rules which prohibit them from doing so, and the considerable lack of support for their participation in sports in the first place. Instead we’re presented with all sorts of false dilemmas designed specifically with the intent of prohibiting people who are transgender from participating in sports (I’m not overlooking the fact that women who are transgender want to participate in mens sports and there are numerous barriers in their way too) in the name of “maintaining the integrity of women’s sports” and concerns for players health and safety. Seems a bit coincidental to be getting concerned about that when women have been abused in sports from their earliest attempts to participate, and the numbers of women participating in sports has only grown since then!
0 -
There would be no elite or professional sports that females compete it, bar those which are already mixed.
Group segregation would also need to be reworked to keep the categories competitive, e.g. females of 90kg would compete against 70kg males, or maybe less. Trans would use the limits of their "born" gender or some sort of halfway depending on disadvantage.
Remember that one of the arguments here is that anyone can be a woman in sports by declaring so and competing as they like against females with no testosterone or hormone limits.
Once they accept limits, then those limits may be less than a female due to other advantages.
The complete elimination of competitive and professional sports seems to be another goal for some, though thinly veiled.
The logic also means doing away with age and weight categories, the paralympics would just be shut down as unfair to the able bodied.
1 -
The complete elimination of competitive and professional sports seems to be another goal for some, though thinly veiled.
The logic also means doing away with age and weight categories, the paralympics would just be shut down as unfair to the able bodied.
Not while Seb has anything to do with it 😂
Chairman of the London organising committee, Sebastian Coe, said about the 2012 Summer Paralympics and 2012 Summer Olympics in London, England, that, "We want to change public attitudes towards disability, celebrate the excellence of Paralympic sport and to enshrine from the very outset that the two Games are an integrated whole."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralympic_Games
That’s apart from the fact that there’s been no indication, thinly veiled or otherwise, that anyone wants the complete elimination of competitive and professional sports, and this “logic” inferring that it means doing away with age and weight categories or that the Paralympics would just be shut down as unfair to the able bodied?
It just doesn’t follow, and I can’t tell if you’re being serious, or being histrionic and taking the piss 😂
0 -
With the exception of a few sports, elite women don't compete against men, there's a very good reason for that. Your post is mainly about participation, while I'd agree with a lot of your points about women's participation being restricted and barriers put in their way, it's not directly linked to this thread. The issue with how trans athletes can be accommodated in sport is not a black and white issue, I think it needs a case by case assessment, different sports will require different solutions. It's not a simple fix, circumstances will vary from case to case, what works in one case won't necessarily work in a different situation.
4 -
So you agree with some segregation? You know where this goes, you're still spinning around the drain with long prose.
3 -
I’m not being obtuse, but I’m not a mind reader either, but it’s just I can’t think of any good reason for it, and you don’t say what the good reason is.
The points I’m making are directly linked to this thread when the justification for prohibiting men’s participation in women’s sports are that it’s to protect the integrity of women’s sports, concerns for women’s health and safety, and the idea that women would never win an event. None of those things are true, unless they’re suggesting that they would have to abandon the things they haven’t been doing up to now, like protecting the integrity of women’s sports and so on, or subjecting women and girls to degrading and inhumane treatment, but that’s apparently how they become elite athletes?
I’m not suggesting that’s what you’re saying, I’m saying that’s the reality right now, so your fears that women wouldn’t have the chance to become elite athletes if they have to compete against men, is a far more remote possibility than the reality of what inhibits their progress in their chosen sport, primarily run by men, who aren’t transgender, and have no interest in competing against women whatsoever! Why would they, the moneys shyte anyway compared to what they can earn in the men’s game, and that’s even before they’d have to deal with the public humiliation they’d face for being a man in the women’s game! The good reason men wouldn’t be keen to compete with women is precisely because it would be utterly humiliating, being ‘relegated’ as it were, to ‘competing’ with women.
I completely agree with you though that accommodating trans athletes in sport isn’t black and white, and case by case assessments already happen in all sports, from club and school level all the way up to international elite level, it’s not a question that they don’t have the resources to do it, and I know different sports require different solutions, same as every athlete will have different accommodation requirements already, precisely because what works for one athlete doesn’t work for another.
A more tailored approach though can’t and shouldn’t be written into a policy in the way national and international sports organisations are doing now though, that is already done at grassroots levels in any sport, where I’ve unfortunately witnessed talented girls being pushed out of sports, all too often for reasons which have nothing to do with their athletic ability.
0 -
I do agree with some segregation, of course. I’m still kinda perplexed as to where the whole “Paralympics be shut down because it’s unfair to able bodied athletes” came from is all.
It may be because I’m thinking of a relative of mine who was born with what some people nowadays term a “life-limiting condition”, and after he had an organ transplant a few years ago now, with help from another relative who was a competitive body builder at the time, he bulked up, took up running, and is now competing in international competitions! He doesn’t compete in the Paralympics but he did compete in the Transplant Games for a while before switching to another sport which isn’t in the Transplant Games -
I hope you’ll understand why I’m being a bit vague on the details above, because the circumstances aren’t exactly common! 😂
More common though, is the issue of sex-segregated schools in Ireland, something which I actually support, but before you get all excited, here’s the kicker - I fully support the inclusion of children who aren’t Catholic or are members of a minority group in Irish society.
Only once while I served on the Board of Management of a school was I approached by a parent who wanted to enrol their child in the school but they appeared to be anxious about the fact that their child was transgender. I explained it wouldn’t be an issue, and if there was anything I could do just name it. I began to get the feeling from the parent that they were hoping to be met with resistance, and I’d let them down by ensuring there were no barriers to their child’s education… it was weird 😂
0 -
World Rugby has a good set of pages describing the science. The information is tailored towards rugby but is applicable to a wide range of sports. Here's an extract:
The result of these biological differences is that males outperform females in all sporting activities where speed, size, power, strength, cardiorespiratory and anthropometric characteristics are crucial determinants of performance. This is true for many thousands of boys and men who have undergone a testosterone-induced puberty, with an effect large enough that 14 to 15-year old boys outperform the best female athletes in history in a range of running, jumping, throwing and strength events
The problem isn't really whether trans women are going "to take over" elite women's sport. The numbers may well be quite small, but the few who do enter are pretty much destined to rise to the top. Look at Laurel Hubbard who as a man took up weight lifting as a way of dealing with her gender dysphoria. When she transitioned, next thing is she finds herself at the Olympics! So, while OEJ might be right that there will always be elite level female athletes; whenever a half decent trans woman gets involved, the outcome will be clear. Records will be set, that females will never beat.
3 -
I wasn't advocating for women to compete directly with men, but, some people seem to want this to happen, as I said in my opinion women would be the big losers in that scenario, it's never likely to happen anyway. It's important that women's sports gets it's fair share of media coverage which is beginning to happen, especially over the last few years, media coverage has improved massively, this has a really positive effect on girls participation, more than any legislation. Sex ( or gender) segregation is important to ensure women's sports continues to grow, and trans athletes assessed on a case by case basis.
1 -
Advertisement
-
So, for some segregation, you're then OK with tests for that segregation? E.g. what grade an athlete would compete at in their event at the paralympics, understanding that it could be quite an invasive and personal test.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
