Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the new generations who will be able to complete their transition by age of 12 will still be able to participate in the future!!! Oh wait …
"I found that statement very confusing. Everyone gets upset about kids transitioning too early, then this says they need to be done by 12 if they want to compete. They seem conflicting | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the new generations who will be able to complete their transition by age of 12 will still be able to participate in the future!!! Oh wait …
I found that statement very confusing. Everyone gets upset about kids transitioning too early, then this says they need to be done by 12 if they want to compete. They seem conflicting "Its basically to say: well we aren’t saying we exclude trans… But it’s just a loophole cos you can’t have kids having surgery that young. I don’t think no country (western) would allow that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the new generations who will be able to complete their transition by age of 12 will still be able to participate in the future!!! Oh wait …
I found that statement very confusing. Everyone gets upset about kids transitioning too early, then this says they need to be done by 12 if they want to compete. They seem conflicting
Its basically to say: well we aren’t saying we exclude trans…
But it’s just a loophole cos you can’t have kids having surgery that young. I don’t think no country (western) would allow that "I thought they’d already covered that by introducing a new league for trans athletes It just seems like an odd point since they know no one is going to finish their transition by 12. Plus, what do they mean by finish? Complete HRT? Can you even complete HRT? Or do they mean full surgery? In which case, good luck, the NHS wait lists are so long and as you said, no one under 12 is getting surgery. It’s an odd statement and one I feel they just put out there to cover their ass, knowing it’ll never come into effect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the new generations who will be able to complete their transition by age of 12 will still be able to participate in the future!!! Oh wait …
I found that statement very confusing. Everyone gets upset about kids transitioning too early, then this says they need to be done by 12 if they want to compete. They seem conflicting
Its basically to say: well we aren’t saying we exclude trans…
But it’s just a loophole cos you can’t have kids having surgery that young. I don’t think no country (western) would allow that
I thought they’d already covered that by introducing a new league for trans athletes
It just seems like an odd point since they know no one is going to finish their transition by 12.
Plus, what do they mean by finish? Complete HRT? Can you even complete HRT? Or do they mean full surgery? In which case, good luck, the NHS wait lists are so long and as you said, no one under 12 is getting surgery.
It’s an odd statement and one I feel they just put out there to cover their ass, knowing it’ll never come into effect "I think they mean surgical castration. Not necessarily a vagina. I’m not sure to be honest. I don’t think even going private, no surgeon would ever touch a child even with parent’s consent Unless they go do it somewhere dodgy outside Europe/US | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my mind, sporting divisiona are there to create fairness and completion. Not to necessary reflect societal classifications. That's why as well as sex/gender there are often weight divisions. And in the Paralympics, there are different classes (which I understand can be abused and aren't perfect) It's also why olyhese divisions have further divisions. Eg county level. It keeps the competition into fairly homogeneous groups. Now, I don't know the science or the details of the decisons, but if science shows that transitioning after X gives, on average, an unfair advantage then I can understand why you'd want a rule to stop the top level of a sport from being skewed. I do accept it may only be a few and I'm not suggesting anyone will transaction just to win. The counter argument is that even if there is an advantage,bcases are few and far between. So unlikely to really affect the top places. However given the elite are relying on places to provide income, I can see why missing out on the games etc is a big deal. Again, this is nothing to do with social views. Purely one of thinking about why women's ckass even exists.... Because tej extreme answer is say get rid of all classifications. It's the 100m all comers final. " I mean it is what it is, and I can see all sides of the arguments. Either way, it just goes to show how it isn’t a choice to be trans and wanting to transition to be true to one self, because trans people are used to sacrifice Whether it’s careers, love/family, put on hold things (dreams etc that don’t involve the transition) , go through the hoops of medical change (so financial cost) to name a few Im sure the ones who won’t be able to compete anymore, they will find some solace in the fact that they are who they are now , and they are living their truth, which is still very commendable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about" Isn’t it sort of a logical fallacy to think no unfair advantage can exist unless it’s dominating a sport? Can you think of any unfair advantages that don’t result in someone dominating a sport? But are still unfair to the people competing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my mind, sporting divisiona are there to create fairness and completion. Not to necessary reflect societal classifications. That's why as well as sex/gender there are often weight divisions. And in the Paralympics, there are different classes (which I understand can be abused and aren't perfect) It's also why olyhese divisions have further divisions. Eg county level. It keeps the competition into fairly homogeneous groups. Now, I don't know the science or the details of the decisons, but if science shows that transitioning after X gives, on average, an unfair advantage then I can understand why you'd want a rule to stop the top level of a sport from being skewed. I do accept it may only be a few and I'm not suggesting anyone will transaction just to win. The counter argument is that even if there is an advantage,bcases are few and far between. So unlikely to really affect the top places. However given the elite are relying on places to provide income, I can see why missing out on the games etc is a big deal. Again, this is nothing to do with social views. Purely one of thinking about why women's ckass even exists.... Because tej extreme answer is say get rid of all classifications. It's the 100m all comers final. I mean it is what it is, and I can see all sides of the arguments. Either way, it just goes to show how it isn’t a choice to be trans and wanting to transition to be true to one self, because trans people are used to sacrifice Whether it’s careers, love/family, put on hold things (dreams etc that don’t involve the transition) , go through the hoops of medical change (so financial cost) to name a few Im sure the ones who won’t be able to compete anymore, they will find some solace in the fact that they are who they are now , and they are living their truth, which is still very commendable "There is new 'open' category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their birth sex. Is this not a step in the right direction and allowing competitive sport for everyone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Isn’t it sort of a logical fallacy to think no unfair advantage can exist unless it’s dominating a sport? Can you think of any unfair advantages that don’t result in someone dominating a sport? But are still unfair to the people competing? " The logical fallacy is to assume because Trans Women have larger frames and increased body density they must be better and have an unfair advantage. The whole. And advantage Fair or otherwise by definition means they would be more successful. The results speak for themselves and Trans women do no beat Cis women by any statistically relevant amount, if anything the opposite is true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the new generations who will be able to complete their transition by age of 12 will still be able to participate in the future!!! Oh wait …
"Yes that bit made me chuckle | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Isn’t it sort of a logical fallacy to think no unfair advantage can exist unless it’s dominating a sport? Can you think of any unfair advantages that don’t result in someone dominating a sport? But are still unfair to the people competing? The logical fallacy is to assume because Trans Women have larger frames and increased body density they must be better and have an unfair advantage. The whole. And advantage Fair or otherwise by definition means they would be more successful. The results speak for themselves and Trans women do no beat Cis women by any statistically relevant amount, if anything the opposite is true" Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my mind, sporting divisiona are there to create fairness and completion. Not to necessary reflect societal classifications. That's why as well as sex/gender there are often weight divisions. And in the Paralympics, there are different classes (which I understand can be abused and aren't perfect) It's also why olyhese divisions have further divisions. Eg county level. It keeps the competition into fairly homogeneous groups. Now, I don't know the science or the details of the decisons, but if science shows that transitioning after X gives, on average, an unfair advantage then I can understand why you'd want a rule to stop the top level of a sport from being skewed. I do accept it may only be a few and I'm not suggesting anyone will transaction just to win. The counter argument is that even if there is an advantage,bcases are few and far between. So unlikely to really affect the top places. However given the elite are relying on places to provide income, I can see why missing out on the games etc is a big deal. Again, this is nothing to do with social views. Purely one of thinking about why women's ckass even exists.... Because tej extreme answer is say get rid of all classifications. It's the 100m all comers final. I mean it is what it is, and I can see all sides of the arguments. Either way, it just goes to show how it isn’t a choice to be trans and wanting to transition to be true to one self, because trans people are used to sacrifice Whether it’s careers, love/family, put on hold things (dreams etc that don’t involve the transition) , go through the hoops of medical change (so financial cost) to name a few Im sure the ones who won’t be able to compete anymore, they will find some solace in the fact that they are who they are now , and they are living their truth, which is still very commendable
There is new 'open' category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their birth sex. Is this not a step in the right direction and allowing competitive sport for everyone? "Very nice! A bit like the freak show  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my mind, sporting divisiona are there to create fairness and completion. Not to necessary reflect societal classifications. That's why as well as sex/gender there are often weight divisions. And in the Paralympics, there are different classes (which I understand can be abused and aren't perfect) It's also why olyhese divisions have further divisions. Eg county level. It keeps the competition into fairly homogeneous groups. Now, I don't know the science or the details of the decisons, but if science shows that transitioning after X gives, on average, an unfair advantage then I can understand why you'd want a rule to stop the top level of a sport from being skewed. I do accept it may only be a few and I'm not suggesting anyone will transaction just to win. The counter argument is that even if there is an advantage,bcases are few and far between. So unlikely to really affect the top places. However given the elite are relying on places to provide income, I can see why missing out on the games etc is a big deal. Again, this is nothing to do with social views. Purely one of thinking about why women's ckass even exists.... Because tej extreme answer is say get rid of all classifications. It's the 100m all comers final. I mean it is what it is, and I can see all sides of the arguments. Either way, it just goes to show how it isn’t a choice to be trans and wanting to transition to be true to one self, because trans people are used to sacrifice Whether it’s careers, love/family, put on hold things (dreams etc that don’t involve the transition) , go through the hoops of medical change (so financial cost) to name a few Im sure the ones who won’t be able to compete anymore, they will find some solace in the fact that they are who they are now , and they are living their truth, which is still very commendable
There is new 'open' category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their birth sex. Is this not a step in the right direction and allowing competitive sport for everyone?
Very nice!
A bit like the freak show "That’s not very nice calling them freaks  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose " advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage" As I said, guess we disagree  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said, guess we disagree "If by disagree you mean you are objectively and provably wrong, then sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said, guess we disagree
If by disagree you mean you are objectively and provably wrong, then sure."Well if it’s easily provable I’m sure you won’t struggle to send FINA all the evidence and change their stance. Personally I’m not convinced. But everyone’s entitled to their opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about" Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage" Ive done little to read up here ... But do you have anything that shows there isn't a favourable advantage. Im not sure how you could show this. Possibly look at the distribution of X across CIS women and then distribution across trans women and see if they are the same. Where I suspect this will get to is there are some differences, and the effect of these differences will vary by sports. For example, does transitioning reduce height ..and if so, by how much. That's probably more important in basketball than shot-put. At a guess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Isn’t it sort of a logical fallacy to think no unfair advantage can exist unless it’s dominating a sport? Can you think of any unfair advantages that don’t result in someone dominating a sport? But are still unfair to the people competing? The logical fallacy is to assume because Trans Women have larger frames and increased body density they must be better and have an unfair advantage. The whole. And advantage Fair or otherwise by definition means they would be more successful. The results speak for themselves and Trans women do no beat Cis women by any statistically relevant amount, if anything the opposite is true Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose " I do some casual sports with female friends and my explosive force is still pretty more reliable than theirs. I have been on hormones for a good 10 years and I am pretty scrawny but I can exert a lot more controlled power in some things and my lungs are bigger . I think I wouldn’t want to compete with non trans women in certain types of events . Things like shooting / racing / agility sure no probs as these are pretty built around real skill . Though the reality is there is such a minuscule number of trans people in the world less than 1% it was 0.80% last time I read the global recorded stats So the odds of people even competing is low low low . Open events will be a good start and If big companies like Disney / Apple / Google / meta / clothing brands get behind them with sponsoring said events. This could be the spark to ignite a great surge in womens and open events. I have some female athlete friends that would love to compete against men / trans in some events just to really see how far they can push. The sad thing will be some groups will still be pissed that trans people will getting funding pushed towards them instead of cis women . Though if we look how in comparison female sports popularity is vs male sports. I would imagine open sports will be minuscule beyond belief | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage" The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1." people have gone through countless sports looking at the records and results of Cis and Trans competitors and found that Trans people do not out compete Cis counterparts in any statistical manner. Yes there are studies that show that trans women have larger frames and higher bone density, what they do not show is that the ghave translated into a competitive advantage. Lia Thomas won a race, but didnt break records in the competitions where Lia competed 27 all time NCAA record were broken... NONE of them were by her. 18 of them were by Kate Douglas a Cis Woman | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? " yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. people have gone through countless sports looking at the records and results of Cis and Trans competitors and found that Trans people do not out compete Cis counterparts in any statistical manner. Yes there are studies that show that trans women have larger frames and higher bone density, what they do not show is that the ghave translated into a competitive advantage. Lia Thomas won a race, but didnt break records in the competitions where Lia competed 27 all time NCAA record were broken... NONE of them were by her. 18 of them were by Kate Douglas a Cis Woman" You failed to address the most salient point. As a man he was ranked at 462. As a woman, she is ranked at number 1. This means that she has overtaken all other women, the end results of individual events make no difference. She has the physical potential to win events, and take the prize money and benefits away from women because she used to be a man and for no other reason. This is blatantly unfair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple." 12% is an awfully large number to have on your side for strength and speed, and if those Trans woman who have that advantage are entering / qualifying for competitions at a national level and still not winning, why are they taking the place of someone who hasn't got that advantage and would like to compete on a level playing field? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. " That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple." TBF while that may be the argument some put out there, it's not what I'm seeing as being the argument presented here. It's how much they move up the ladder. Not if they get to the top rung. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple." Is that the argument? I thought it was “is it fair” not “who will win” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"XX your female XY your male. Your born what sex you are. Genetically you can’t change! Might get a lot of hate for this but there you go. Too many Karren’s about nowadays. "The irony of you not realising that you're the Karen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple. 12% is an awfully large number to have on your side for strength and speed, and if those Trans woman who have that advantage are entering / qualifying for competitions at a national level and still not winning, why are they taking the place of someone who hasn't got that advantage and would like to compete on a level playing field? " So do you think that Michael Phelps should have been disqualified from competing because he literally had a genetic advantage which meant he did not build up lactic acid like others you do realise your argument is trans Women shouldn't compete if they aren't winning, and shouldn't compete if they are winning right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple. 12% is an awfully large number to have on your side for strength and speed, and if those Trans woman who have that advantage are entering / qualifying for competitions at a national level and still not winning, why are they taking the place of someone who hasn't got that advantage and would like to compete on a level playing field? So do you think that Michael Phelps should have been disqualified from competing because he literally had a genetic advantage which meant he did not build up lactic acid like others you do realise your argument is trans Women shouldn't compete if they aren't winning, and shouldn't compete if they are winning right? " I have no argument, I'm asking for your opinions on the facts. You are saying Trans woman don't win, I'm asking you if their place in the event / team is justified, when they have a 12% advantage and are still not winning? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple. 12% is an awfully large number to have on your side for strength and speed, and if those Trans woman who have that advantage are entering / qualifying for competitions at a national level and still not winning, why are they taking the place of someone who hasn't got that advantage and would like to compete on a level playing field? So do you think that Michael Phelps should have been disqualified from competing because he literally had a genetic advantage which meant he did not build up lactic acid like others you do realise your argument is trans Women shouldn't compete if they aren't winning, and shouldn't compete if they are winning right? " to recap an earlier post... I see the men's as really being the "all comers" category. And as such, the genetically gifted will do the best (when combined with a huge amount of dedication) The question I ask myself is why is there a women's category. How you answer that may influence positions on trans competitors. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Isn’t it sort of a logical fallacy to think no unfair advantage can exist unless it’s dominating a sport? Can you think of any unfair advantages that don’t result in someone dominating a sport? But are still unfair to the people competing? The logical fallacy is to assume because Trans Women have larger frames and increased body density they must be better and have an unfair advantage. The whole. And advantage Fair or otherwise by definition means they would be more successful. The results speak for themselves and Trans women do no beat Cis women by any statistically relevant amount, if anything the opposite is true" I think you fail to understand the numbers. Trans people (to the best of my understanding) make up roughly 1% of the population. Given that only a tiny percentage of these go on to fully transition legally, let alone biologically, you are left with a very very small percentage of people as a pool for potential world class athletes - made smaller again by all the countries that ban any form of gender transition. Add to this that to reach the top in a lot of sports requires a person to not only have the right genetics but to start young, be incredibly dedicated and maintain a high level of training for years. Given the emotional, mental and physical changes and difficulties a person choosing to transition faces, the time it takes to do so, the availability of affordable treatment etc,the likelihood of them being able to get the sort of start in a sport that will set them up for being world class is vanishingly small. Set this against the tiny tiny tiny percentage of all people who reach elite level in sports and all of a sudden it isn't surprising that we don't see trans women dominating. The lack of evidence of trans women dominating in any particular sport isn't necessarily evidence of no advantage - there are a whole host of reasons that could explain this. For what it is worth, I am ambivalent to the ruling. There is absolutely no way I could fight as a bantam weight boxer, ride the winner of the grand national, win the London marathon, become the top scorer in the NBA or compete in dozens of other sports at a world class level thanks to the body that genetics have given me, is this fair? Who cares, its life. The whole debate is based on fairness, is it fair to exclude trans people, is it fair for cis gendered women to have to compete against trans etc. As such, its entirely subjective, there are no right or wrong answers and we would be able to discuss it easier if we all stopped thinking that there is a solution that is fair for everyone or that everyone should share our view of fairness. Life isn't fair. There is absolutely no reason to expect that everyone should be in with an equal chance of being the best in any sport whatsoever. Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are." Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"XX your female XY your male. Your born what sex you are." Intersex? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? " Unfortunately you couldnt really compare the same athlete before and post transition, because transition takes a length of time and prevents proper training during much of it, simply the aging of the athlete would have a marked effect on their performance. so it is hard to use that as a barometer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the new generations who will be able to complete their transition by age of 12 will still be able to participate in the future!!! Oh wait …
I found that statement very confusing. Everyone gets upset about kids transitioning too early, then this says they need to be done by 12 if they want to compete. They seem conflicting "It's almost as of they've done it on purpose to look supportive of trans athletes but ....oh.....hang on....they don't make the rules over when someone can transition so it's not their fault this policy is exclusionary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1." No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? Unfortunately you couldnt really compare the same athlete before and post transition, because transition takes a length of time and prevents proper training during much of it, simply the aging of the athlete would have a marked effect on their performance. so it is hard to use that as a barometer" Not saying it's the same but some world class cis female athletes, I'm thinking of Jessica Ennis who during their track career had a baby and came back and won a gold medal. How I've no idea but fair play on the lady. The hormonal shifts the changes in the pelvis and ribs etc would be the closest thing in comparison wouldn't it? (Question to someone with far superior knowledge than me on the subject). So it would be feasible wouldn't it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? Unfortunately you couldnt really compare the same athlete before and post transition, because transition takes a length of time and prevents proper training during much of it, simply the aging of the athlete would have a marked effect on their performance. so it is hard to use that as a barometer Not saying it's the same but some world class cis female athletes, I'm thinking of Jessica Ennis who during their track career had a baby and came back and won a gold medal. How I've no idea but fair play on the lady. The hormonal shifts the changes in the pelvis and ribs etc would be the closest thing in comparison wouldn't it? (Question to someone with far superior knowledge than me on the subject). So it would be feasible wouldn't it? " I mean Cis Women tend to outperform in ultra endurance activities so it really doesn't surprise me that they can back like that after pregnancy, but no I dont know of any data in the vein you are looking for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? Unfortunately you couldnt really compare the same athlete before and post transition, because transition takes a length of time and prevents proper training during much of it, simply the aging of the athlete would have a marked effect on their performance. so it is hard to use that as a barometer Not saying it's the same but some world class cis female athletes, I'm thinking of Jessica Ennis who during their track career had a baby and came back and won a gold medal. How I've no idea but fair play on the lady. The hormonal shifts the changes in the pelvis and ribs etc would be the closest thing in comparison wouldn't it? (Question to someone with far superior knowledge than me on the subject). So it would be feasible wouldn't it? I mean Cis Women tend to outperform in ultra endurance activities so it really doesn't surprise me that they can back like that after pregnancy, but no I dont know of any data in the vein you are looking for." Thank you lovely for answering my questions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? Unfortunately you couldnt really compare the same athlete before and post transition, because transition takes a length of time and prevents proper training during much of it, simply the aging of the athlete would have a marked effect on their performance. so it is hard to use that as a barometer Not saying it's the same but some world class cis female athletes, I'm thinking of Jessica Ennis who during their track career had a baby and came back and won a gold medal. How I've no idea but fair play on the lady. The hormonal shifts the changes in the pelvis and ribs etc would be the closest thing in comparison wouldn't it? (Question to someone with far superior knowledge than me on the subject). So it would be feasible wouldn't it? I mean Cis Women tend to outperform in ultra endurance activities so it really doesn't surprise me that they can back like that after pregnancy, but no I dont know of any data in the vein you are looking for." I wouldn’t say they out perform, they just do a lot better in that particular sport If you look at the top ultra endurance athletes it’s about a 50/50 split | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. " So, from 462 to 15 and you don't think that's unusual? I challenge you to find any athlete, any gender, any nationality in any sport ever who has had that kind of increase in the ranking tables. For every rank placing she goes up, she pushes a woman down. By the conclusion of her swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, pushing other women down. Do you how valuable collegiate sports' successes are in the US? She took that away from women. As I said in my post further up - Caitlyn Jenner doesn't believe that this is fair, and she won 2 gold medals at the Olympics. How are you better qualified than her to make any kind of judgement? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. So, from 462 to 15 and you don't think that's unusual? I challenge you to find any athlete, any gender, any nationality in any sport ever who has had that kind of increase in the ranking tables. For every rank placing she goes up, she pushes a woman down. By the conclusion of her swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, pushing other women down. Do you how valuable collegiate sports' successes are in the US? She took that away from women. As I said in my post further up - Caitlyn Jenner doesn't believe that this is fair, and she won 2 gold medals at the Olympics. How are you better qualified than her to make any kind of judgement?" Where did i say I was any better qualified than anyone else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. So, from 462 to 15 and you don't think that's unusual? I challenge you to find any athlete, any gender, any nationality in any sport ever who has had that kind of increase in the ranking tables. For every rank placing she goes up, she pushes a woman down. By the conclusion of her swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, pushing other women down. Do you how valuable collegiate sports' successes are in the US? She took that away from women. As I said in my post further up - Caitlyn Jenner doesn't believe that this is fair, and she won 2 gold medals at the Olympics. How are you better qualified than her to make any kind of judgement? Where did i say I was any better qualified than anyone else?" You didn't, I'm asking you the question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. So, from 462 to 15 and you don't think that's unusual? I challenge you to find any athlete, any gender, any nationality in any sport ever who has had that kind of increase in the ranking tables. For every rank placing she goes up, she pushes a woman down. By the conclusion of her swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, pushing other women down. Do you how valuable collegiate sports' successes are in the US? She took that away from women. As I said in my post further up - Caitlyn Jenner doesn't believe that this is fair, and she won 2 gold medals at the Olympics. How are you better qualified than her to make any kind of judgement?" Also... according to good old wiki and swimcloud....she isn't ranked 1st for the 2021/22 season. She was ranked 36th for college females and 46th female nationally. Still a big jump I'll grant you but again, her performance was still way behind 14 other women in terms of records. Her times as a female are 15 seconds less than when she was competing as a male so clearly the hormones have had some affect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. So, from 462 to 15 and you don't think that's unusual? I challenge you to find any athlete, any gender, any nationality in any sport ever who has had that kind of increase in the ranking tables. For every rank placing she goes up, she pushes a woman down. By the conclusion of her swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, pushing other women down. Do you how valuable collegiate sports' successes are in the US? She took that away from women. As I said in my post further up - Caitlyn Jenner doesn't believe that this is fair, and she won 2 gold medals at the Olympics. How are you better qualified than her to make any kind of judgement? Where did i say I was any better qualified than anyone else? You didn't, I'm asking you the question." It was an insinuation that I thought I was. 'how are you better qualified...' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly I think the people that should be deciding should be the consensus of the athletes in the sport, they are of course the ones directly affected... Anonymous polling suggests a significant majority support Trans athletes competing." Could you link where you found that poll? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about Why do you think the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous? There is currently very little medical, or empirical evidence either way. The most recent studies show that trans women do have a physical advantage more than two years after transitioning. Trans women haven't dominated sports for decades purely because this is a very recent topic, and again, studies have not yet been determined as conclusive. The swimmer, Lia Thomas, is an example of this unfairness. When she was on the men's swimming team she ranked at no.462; now, as a woman on the women's team, she’s no.1. No1 in that field, on that day, in that competing year. It just so happens that the competitors that year weren't particularly good. Her overall standing is something like 15th for the distances she competed at. Not very dominating. So, from 462 to 15 and you don't think that's unusual? I challenge you to find any athlete, any gender, any nationality in any sport ever who has had that kind of increase in the ranking tables. For every rank placing she goes up, she pushes a woman down. By the conclusion of her swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, pushing other women down. Do you how valuable collegiate sports' successes are in the US? She took that away from women. As I said in my post further up - Caitlyn Jenner doesn't believe that this is fair, and she won 2 gold medals at the Olympics. How are you better qualified than her to make any kind of judgement? Also... according to good old wiki and swimcloud....she isn't ranked 1st for the 2021/22 season. She was ranked 36th for college females and 46th female nationally. Still a big jump I'll grant you but again, her performance was still way behind 14 other women in terms of records. Her times as a female are 15 seconds less than when she was competing as a male so clearly the hormones have had some affect. " it will have an affect. But if you take the men's 400m WR and add on 15 seconds, you beath the women's by a second. And that's on a 10pc is shortee course. Theres a load of adjustments that could be claimed, I grant you. But I don't think it's clear the swinming advantage of being a man is wiped out based on this n=1 sample. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"XX your female XY your male. Your born what sex you are. Genetically you can’t change! Might get a lot of hate for this but there you go. Too many Karren’s about nowadays. "Except that's not the full situation though, is it! I have no hate, merely feeling embarrassment, from your perspective  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now Rugby League has banned transgender athletes from top events while it does further research on it’s transgender policy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/61875651" I’ve read this morning that athletics is most likely gonna follow Seems like people are waking up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly I think the people that should be deciding should be the consensus of the athletes in the sport, they are of course the ones directly affected... Anonymous polling suggests a significant majority support Trans athletes competing." If it was decided by the athletes and you wanted it to be fair, there would be a vote every 5 minutes as athletes come and go, that is why most sports have a governing body and in turn make the rules. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my mind, sporting divisiona are there to create fairness and completion. Not to necessary reflect societal classifications. That's why as well as sex/gender there are often weight divisions. And in the Paralympics, there are different classes (which I understand can be abused and aren't perfect) It's also why olyhese divisions have further divisions. Eg county level. It keeps the competition into fairly homogeneous groups. Now, I don't know the science or the details of the decisons, but if science shows that transitioning after X gives, on average, an unfair advantage then I can understand why you'd want a rule to stop the top level of a sport from being skewed. I do accept it may only be a few and I'm not suggesting anyone will transaction just to win. The counter argument is that even if there is an advantage,bcases are few and far between. So unlikely to really affect the top places. However given the elite are relying on places to provide income, I can see why missing out on the games etc is a big deal. Again, this is nothing to do with social views. Purely one of thinking about why women's ckass even exists.... Because tej extreme answer is say get rid of all classifications. It's the 100m all comers final. I mean it is what it is, and I can see all sides of the arguments. Either way, it just goes to show how it isn’t a choice to be trans and wanting to transition to be true to one self, because trans people are used to sacrifice Whether it’s careers, love/family, put on hold things (dreams etc that don’t involve the transition) , go through the hoops of medical change (so financial cost) to name a few Im sure the ones who won’t be able to compete anymore, they will find some solace in the fact that they are who they are now , and they are living their truth, which is still very commendable
There is new 'open' category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their birth sex. Is this not a step in the right direction and allowing competitive sport for everyone?
Very nice!
A bit like the freak show
That’s not very nice calling them freaks "Think she is being sarcastic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most people are rather misinformed on why there is a womens category in sports. It's not a 'protected' category because us frail weak women can't compete with men. Hold onto your hats because I'm about to blow your minds. The women's category was made because women were competing with men in a variety of sports and were coming out on top: Sport 1: Figure Skating. Madge Syers enters the World Champs and comes 2nd (no rule preventing her, though no woman has ever entered before) 1903: Women banned from World Champs 1905: Segregated women's category Sport 2: Skeet Shooting. 1992 Barcelona: Zhang Shang wins the Gold Medal. The event had always been an open event (no gendered categories) 1996 Atlanta: women banned from shooting 2000 Sydney: Segregated women's category, fewer targets for women Sport 3: Football. 1920: Women's football thriving in the UK with 53000 strong crowds (men had been off fighting in WW1) 1921: FA bans women's football (men had returned from WW1) 1971: Fifty (50!) years later ban is lifted, women's football is still recovering. " I can’t profess to be an expert on figure skating or skeet shooting, but in football whilst you’re right about the popularity of the womens game, women didn’t play in mens teams and vice versa, the physical differences are too large. And that’s what this thread is about, isn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most people are rather misinformed on why there is a womens category in sports. It's not a 'protected' category because us frail weak women can't compete with men. Hold onto your hats because I'm about to blow your minds. The women's category was made because women were competing with men in a variety of sports and were coming out on top: Sport 1: Figure Skating. Madge Syers enters the World Champs and comes 2nd (no rule preventing her, though no woman has ever entered before) 1903: Women banned from World Champs 1905: Segregated women's category Sport 2: Skeet Shooting. 1992 Barcelona: Zhang Shang wins the Gold Medal. The event had always been an open event (no gendered categories) 1996 Atlanta: women banned from shooting 2000 Sydney: Segregated women's category, fewer targets for women Sport 3: Football. 1920: Women's football thriving in the UK with 53000 strong crowds (men had been off fighting in WW1) 1921: FA bans women's football (men had returned from WW1) 1971: Fifty (50!) years later ban is lifted, women's football is still recovering. " I don't doubt there is a history here and one not driven by simply by competition. But if the reasons are only political, id be in favour of scrapping the two gender divisions to ensure equality. That gets rid of any issues ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile, Transgender footballers in Germany are allowed to choose if they play in men's or women's teams: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61908388 " This is awesome! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about how transition affects a body. But I do know how much having a monthly period cycle does impact any training I do. There are parts of my cycle I can push myself harder and achieve a lot more then at other stages of my cycle. Bloating and anaemia due to blood loss all can impact on training. So do cis women in general loose more training days than trans women, due to their monthly hormonal cycles? These kind of things will give an advantage at the top levels of the sport I would have thought? I currently don't have an opinion if they should/shouldn't compete it's just a question I've had when I've seen these kind of threads. That is certainly a concern, you may be interested to learn that due to the hormone levels Trans women can also experience period like symptoms even if they are not nearly as severe. My point I have been trying to make through out this is that Trans women HAVE been competing for decades, and if they really had a large enough advantage to legislate them out of the sport then they would be winning a lot more than they are. Thank you I didn't know they experienced a monthly cycle also. It's not something I'm very knowledgeable about I will admit and it's always good to learn. Are there any elite trans women who have competed with cis men (say top 50 in the world) and then transitioned? And following transition, how did they rank when they competed with cis women? Unfortunately you couldnt really compare the same athlete before and post transition, because transition takes a length of time and prevents proper training during much of it, simply the aging of the athlete would have a marked effect on their performance. so it is hard to use that as a barometer" Are you a scientist..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you a scientist..?" No but I understand the scientific method and know that the time to go through transition introduces an X Factor into the data which may make in unreliable. Trans Women are women, and as such belong in Women'# Sport | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you a scientist..? No but I understand the scientific method and know that the time to go through transition introduces an X Factor into the data which may make in unreliable. Trans Women are women, and as such belong in Women'# Sport" Thank f***, understanding a 12% advantage in any field, isn't exactly rocket science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly I think the people that should be deciding should be the consensus of the athletes in the sport, they are of course the ones directly affected... Anonymous polling suggests a significant majority support Trans athletes competing. Could you link where you found that poll? " Did you ever get around to linking the poll you said existed? I’d be very interested to see how that poll worked and who they polled. Because that’s not the results I’d expect to see | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile, Transgender footballers in Germany are allowed to choose if they play in men's or women's teams: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61908388 " That will improve the popularity of women's football immeasurably
It will also be interesting to see how many F2M players will fare in the men's teams. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you a scientist..? No but I understand the scientific method and know that the time to go through transition introduces an X Factor into the data which may make in unreliable. Trans Women are women, and as such belong in Women'# Sport" When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as female, or is it more than that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored." The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture." When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? " A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out" I'm being argumentative here to test a point.... If I am a successful athelte who wins a medal in the women's category, who then "comes out" as a transgender male.... Do I lose my medals ? As I was always a man, but I was completing the women's category (I didn't do any hormone stuff. My medals are legit) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out" In that case a trans woman can be a physically unchanged man? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out" Is that fact though or your opinion? I don’t think a gay person was necessarily always gay at all! My lesbian friend certainly wasn’t always a lesbian. So I’d say that was more opinion than fact | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming outI'm being argumentative here to test a point.... If I am a successful athelte who wins a medal in the women's category, who then "comes out" as a transgender male.... Do I lose my medals ? As I was always a man, but I was completing the women's category (I didn't do any hormone stuff. My medals are legit)" No because sporting classifications are not based off gender identity at all. They are based on measurable biological markers (for example weight brackets and testosterone levels which also exclude cis athletes as well as trans) and when you competed you fulfilled the criteria for competing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out In that case a trans woman can be a physically unchanged man? " yes, and many do because of how bad trans health care is in this country. Also there are genetic and other conditions that prevent people from undergoing HRT or surgery, they are no less Trans | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out Is that fact though or your opinion? I don’t think a gay person was necessarily always gay at all! My lesbian friend certainly wasn’t always a lesbian. So I’d say that was more opinion than fact " In the quoted text you will see me stating that gender is a social construct therefore anything to do with it is subjective, therefore opinion. But the consensus of Biologists, Neurologists, sociologist, anthropologists and psychologist/psychiatrists is that Trans Women are Women and Trans Men are Men | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out Is that fact though or your opinion? I don’t think a gay person was necessarily always gay at all! My lesbian friend certainly wasn’t always a lesbian. So I’d say that was more opinion than fact " Well you are born trans, as in, it’s all to do with the brain and stuff. Somebody can know and realise that there’s a mismatch between sex and gender, but not transition, and try and live their lives as their biological sex (because it can be scary, too difficult, too late, too expensive, too painful etc etc) By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics)" I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture." This is what I'm talking about. Opinions being presented as facts. The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. Another fact is that 'woman' and 'trans woman' are different by definition. Therefore not the same. Most people can grasp this. It doesn't mean they are anti-trans or hate trans people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well you are born trans, as in, it’s all to do with the brain and stuff. Somebody can know and realise that there’s a mismatch between sex and gender, but not transition, and try and live their lives as their biological sex (because it can be scary, too difficult, too late, too expensive, too painful etc etc) By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics)" It is a valid point you raise there are very different definitions between Transgender, Transsexxual and Transvestite and answers vary depending on which word you are refering to. A transgender person is one whose gender identity does not correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth. Transsexual is a term that has fallen out of favour among a lot of trans people. It used to mean transgender people who have, or want to, use medical intervention – hormones or surgery – to permanently transition from the gender assigned at birth to the one they identify as. And Transvestite in today's world is essentially a synonym for crossdresser. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out Is that fact though or your opinion? I don’t think a gay person was necessarily always gay at all! My lesbian friend certainly wasn’t always a lesbian. So I’d say that was more opinion than fact In the quoted text you will see me stating that gender is a social construct therefore anything to do with it is subjective, therefore opinion. But the consensus of Biologists, Neurologists, sociologist, anthropologists and psychologist/psychiatrists is that Trans Women are Women and Trans Men are Men" Have no idea about that so wouldn’t wish to comment. I was commenting on the gay part. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)"Trans is latin, it means "on the other side of" It's antonym Cis is also latin meaning "On the same side as" It has been used in a load of words, but only seems to cause a fuss with gender. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. This is what I'm talking about. Opinions being presented as facts. The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. Another fact is that 'woman' and 'trans woman' are different by definition. Therefore not the same. Most people can grasp this. It doesn't mean they are anti-trans or hate trans people. " You do realise you are presenting your opinion as fact here right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)
Trans is latin, it means "on the other side of"
It's antonym Cis is also latin meaning "On the same side as"
It has been used in a load of words, but only seems to cause a fuss with gender."Ahh... thank you. I genuinely thought it was short for transitioning in this context. Thank you for both not taking offence (I hope) and correcting my ignorance! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)"I think trans means the opposite side, so trans-gender. Meaning opposite gender? Something like that? Transitioning is the journey of going from male to female or female to male. With hormones and surgeries (every transition is different and stops and starts where they want. Might never end for some. For some ends with certain ops like vaginoplasty or whatever) But I did some research and when the FINA said one must complete their transition by 12. It means their testosterone must have a certain level (so it’s like castration as they become infertile) AND they must never be gone through an androgen phase. But I mean at 12 , none goes through puberty at that age! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)
Trans is latin, it means "on the other side of"
It's antonym Cis is also latin meaning "On the same side as"
It has been used in a load of words, but only seems to cause a fuss with gender.
Ahh... thank you.
I genuinely thought it was short for transitioning in this context.
Thank you for both not taking offence (I hope) and correcting my ignorance! "I will always be hap[py to answer questions that I see which appear to be in good faith! feel free to ask me anything, whether on the forums or in DMs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. This is what I'm talking about. Opinions being presented as facts. The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. Another fact is that 'woman' and 'trans woman' are different by definition. Therefore not the same. Most people can grasp this. It doesn't mean they are anti-trans or hate trans people. You do realise you are presenting your opinion as fact here right?" That pretty much confirms you don't know what a fact actually is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. This is what I'm talking about. Opinions being presented as facts. The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. Another fact is that 'woman' and 'trans woman' are different by definition. Therefore not the same. Most people can grasp this. It doesn't mean they are anti-trans or hate trans people. You do realise you are presenting your opinion as fact here right? That pretty much confirms you don't know what a fact actually is. " I take facts to be what the scientific communities consensus is and that sides with me, not you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. When does a man become a trans woman? What is the simplest way, is it a male identifying as woman, or is it more than that??? A Transgender Woman never was a man, Just like a Gay person was always gay even if they lived "a straight" life before coming out In that case a trans woman can be a physically unchanged man? yes, and many do because of how bad trans health care is in this country. Also there are genetic and other conditions that prevent people from undergoing HRT or surgery, they are no less Trans" This is good to know. Would you agree that a transgender woman could potentially have a 30% + strength and speed advantage over a female athlete, if the transgender woman has decided not to undergo any form of hormone treatments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. " I'd really recommend some reading on what is meant by a social construct. Your own definition of a woman contains a social construct - "adult". At what age someone is an adult varies across time and across cultures. It's a construct, not a scientific fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. This is what I'm talking about. Opinions being presented as facts. The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. Another fact is that 'woman' and 'trans woman' are different by definition. Therefore not the same. Most people can grasp this. It doesn't mean they are anti-trans or hate trans people. You do realise you are presenting your opinion as fact here right? That pretty much confirms you don't know what a fact actually is. I take facts to be what the scientific communities consensus is and that sides with me, not you." This endless whataboutery and petty drivel does nothing but undermine the very subject you're clearly so passionate about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)
I think trans means the opposite side, so trans-gender. Meaning opposite gender? Something like that?
Transitioning is the journey of going from male to female or female to male. With hormones and surgeries (every transition is different and stops and starts where they want. Might never end for some. For some ends with certain ops like vaginoplasty or whatever)
But I did some research and when the FINA said one must complete their transition by 12. It means their testosterone must have a certain level (so it’s like castration as they become infertile) AND they must never be gone through an androgen phase. But I mean at 12 , none goes through puberty at that age! "Thank you also! I really do find it difficult to ask these questions, as you never know whether someone might take offence where none is intended, and that does worry me. So thank you for getting where I'm coming from. I think, but I'm not certain, that there are some cases where people go through puberty before 12, but not many. I would imagine, however, that a majority of trans people would know from early on that they aren't "right" (I really couldn't think of the way to put that, again, no offence intended, my brain is mush today), so 12 isn't actually as early in life as maybe it seems to those of us who have no experience of the feelings? Still seems young to have to had actioned anything though! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)
Trans is latin, it means "on the other side of"
It's antonym Cis is also latin meaning "On the same side as"
It has been used in a load of words, but only seems to cause a fuss with gender.
Ahh... thank you.
I genuinely thought it was short for transitioning in this context.
Thank you for both not taking offence (I hope) and correcting my ignorance!
I will always be hap[py to answer questions that I see which appear to be in good faith! feel free to ask me anything, whether on the forums or in DMs "Thanks lovely! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This endless whataboutery and petty drivel does nothing but undermine the very subject you're clearly so passionate about. " If you mean i have a problem with people denying my existence and lived experience, then yes I do. But it those that are Gender Critical who ignore every bit of science they don't agree with. I acknowledge there is science that shows extra muscle and bone density, but that alone does not equate into an advantage. It takes many things to be a good athlete, having an advantage in one does not mean you have an advantage in all, and does not mean the playing field is unfair | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thank you also! I really do find it difficult to ask these questions, as you never know whether someone might take offence where none is intended, and that does worry me. So thank you for getting where I'm coming from. I think, but I'm not certain, that there are some cases where people go through puberty before 12, but not many. I would imagine, however, that a majority of trans people would know from early on that they aren't "right" (I really couldn't think of the way to put that, again, no offence intended, my brain is mush today), so 12 isn't actually as early in life as maybe it seems to those of us who have no experience of the feelings? Still seems young to have to had actioned anything though!" if we take myself as an example (I am also autistic which throws a complication into things) I never connected with boy/man/male/masc at any point in my life. But being autistic you mask and try to live how others perceive you in order to survive in an all too cruel society. It was only when I knew I was autistic I could peel back the layers of the masking and find my true self. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. I'd really recommend some reading on what is meant by a social construct. Your own definition of a woman contains a social construct - "adult". At what age someone is an adult varies across time and across cultures. It's a construct, not a scientific fact. " An adult is an individual that has reached sexual maturity. It is a biological term that applies to most living organisms. It is not a social construct. It is scientifically demonstrable. This is the problem that many people have when discussing sex. It's not something that applies only to human beings. If people had a better understanding of this we wouldn't see so much misrepresentation and nonsesnse being spoken on the subject. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well you are born trans, as in, it’s all to do with the brain and stuff. Somebody can know and realise that there’s a mismatch between sex and gender, but not transition, and try and live their lives as their biological sex (because it can be scary, too difficult, too late, too expensive, too painful etc etc) By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) It is a valid point you raise there are very different definitions between Transgender, Transsexxual and Transvestite and answers vary depending on which word you are refering to. A transgender person is one whose gender identity does not correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth. Transsexual is a term that has fallen out of favour among a lot of trans people. It used to mean transgender people who have, or want to, use medical intervention – hormones or surgery – to permanently transition from the gender assigned at birth to the one they identify as. And Transvestite in today's world is essentially a synonym for crossdresser." Transvestite isn't something new in today's world it is formed from Latin words to cross over and to clothe. It has always meant a cross dresser. Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thank you also! I really do find it difficult to ask these questions, as you never know whether someone might take offence where none is intended, and that does worry me. So thank you for getting where I'm coming from. I think, but I'm not certain, that there are some cases where people go through puberty before 12, but not many. I would imagine, however, that a majority of trans people would know from early on that they aren't "right" (I really couldn't think of the way to put that, again, no offence intended, my brain is mush today), so 12 isn't actually as early in life as maybe it seems to those of us who have no experience of the feelings? Still seems young to have to had actioned anything though! if we take myself as an example (I am also autistic which throws a complication into things) I never connected with boy/man/male/masc at any point in my life. But being autistic you mask and try to live how others perceive you in order to survive in an all too cruel society. It was only when I knew I was autistic I could peel back the layers of the masking and find my true self." That does throw an added complication in! I never really thought of that... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well you are born trans, as in, it’s all to do with the brain and stuff. Somebody can know and realise that there’s a mismatch between sex and gender, but not transition, and try and live their lives as their biological sex (because it can be scary, too difficult, too late, too expensive, too painful etc etc) By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) It is a valid point you raise there are very different definitions between Transgender, Transsexxual and Transvestite and answers vary depending on which word you are refering to. A transgender person is one whose gender identity does not correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth. Transsexual is a term that has fallen out of favour among a lot of trans people. It used to mean transgender people who have, or want to, use medical intervention – hormones or surgery – to permanently transition from the gender assigned at birth to the one they identify as. And Transvestite in today's world is essentially a synonym for crossdresser. Transvestite isn't something new in today's world it is formed from Latin words to cross over and to clothe. It has always meant a cross dresser. Mr" Yeah it has always meant that, but it has a history of being applied in a derogatory manner by purity culture fanatics, which is why I mentioned it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems as though people have a differnt definitions of 'woman' depending on what their views are. Regardless, people presenting their own opinion as fact in a discussion are best ignored. The problem you have there is that as Woman is a gender and therefore a social construct what it means is subjective and changes depending on your geography and culture. This is what I'm talking about. Opinions being presented as facts. The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. Another fact is that 'woman' and 'trans woman' are different by definition. Therefore not the same. Most people can grasp this. It doesn't mean they are anti-trans or hate trans people. " Obviously a trans woman is not the same as a (genetic born) woman. None claims that and definitely trans people are more aware of their own biology. Now, can a trans woman or a trans man say: I’m a man/woman? without having to always put an absolute emphasis on the word trans? I’d say that can be fair. At the end of the day, trans women operate and live their lives as women, they appear like women, and yes, trans is a reality but it’s also an adjective to define further. Like a Chinese woman for example, or a slim woman, and so on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This endless whataboutery and petty drivel does nothing but undermine the very subject you're clearly so passionate about. If you mean i have a problem with people denying my existence and lived experience, then yes I do. But it those that are Gender Critical who ignore every bit of science they don't agree with. I acknowledge there is science that shows extra muscle and bone density, but that alone does not equate into an advantage. It takes many things to be a good athlete, having an advantage in one does not mean you have an advantage in all, and does not mean the playing field is unfair" If we take my last post here: Would you agree that a transgender woman could potentially have a 30% + strength and speed advantage over a female athlete, if the transgender woman has decided not to undergo any form of hormone treatments. That % increase in speed, could take a an average transgender woman runner to the top or near the top of a sprint. I understand that you pointing out skill and technique also plays some part in the process, but there are sports that skill and technique could be wiped out purely by a % uplift in speed or strength. Would you agree or disagree with that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way to be considered transsexual, I think it’s when hormone therapy starts (so you mess with biology) and surgeries (change primary sex and second sex characteristics) I've actually always wondered that Kylie, but never wanted to ask in case my ignorance was mistaken for something else
So the "trans" part does actually (at least originally) mean "transitioning" then?
(And I am not meaning any offence at all, I just genuinely am curious and as you mentioned it I figured now was a chance to ask in context)
I think trans means the opposite side, so trans-gender. Meaning opposite gender? Something like that?
Transitioning is the journey of going from male to female or female to male. With hormones and surgeries (every transition is different and stops and starts where they want. Might never end for some. For some ends with certain ops like vaginoplasty or whatever)
But I did some research and when the FINA said one must complete their transition by 12. It means their testosterone must have a certain level (so it’s like castration as they become infertile) AND they must never be gone through an androgen phase. But I mean at 12 , none goes through puberty at that age!
Thank you also!
I really do find it difficult to ask these questions, as you never know whether someone might take offence where none is intended, and that does worry me.
So thank you for getting where I'm coming from.
I think, but I'm not certain, that there are some cases where people go through puberty before 12, but not many.
I would imagine, however, that a majority of trans people would know from early on that they aren't "right" (I really couldn't think of the way to put that, again, no offence intended, my brain is mush today), so 12 isn't actually as early in life as maybe it seems to those of us who have no experience of the feelings?
Still seems young to have to had actioned anything though!"I doubt that any surgeon would touch a child, even with a parental consent, I may be wrong but surgeries and hormones are only allowed when somebody becomes 18years old At least in the U.K.? Again I may be completely wrong. Not sure what the US stance is. So yes, self perception of one’s gender can form as early as 5 yrs old. But u know, parents and society and what not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This endless whataboutery and petty drivel does nothing but undermine the very subject you're clearly so passionate about. If you mean i have a problem with people denying my existence and lived experience, then yes I do. But it those that are Gender Critical who ignore every bit of science they don't agree with. I acknowledge there is science that shows extra muscle and bone density, but that alone does not equate into an advantage. It takes many things to be a good athlete, having an advantage in one does not mean you have an advantage in all, and does not mean the playing field is unfair If we take my last post here: Would you agree that a transgender woman could potentially have a 30% + strength and speed advantage over a female athlete, if the transgender woman has decided not to undergo any form of hormone treatments. That % increase in speed, could take a an average transgender woman runner to the top or near the top of a sprint. I understand that you pointing out skill and technique also plays some part in the process, but there are sports that skill and technique could be wiped out purely by a % uplift in speed or strength. Would you agree or disagree with that?" First that 30% figure is off... the scientific studies people are referencing say 12%. it's still a number but the exact number should be used as it matters. My main answer to your questions is this, if what you were supposing were true, Trans Women would have been winning left right and centre for a long time. There have been many years since they could compete, and there isn't a single Trans Athlete who is consistently beating their competition.... There are however Cis Women who are. The Reality does not reflect The Theory people are putting forth | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""My main answer to your questions is this, if what you were supposing were true, Trans Women would have been winning left right and centre for a long time. There have been many years since they could compete, and there isn't a single Trans Athlete who is consistently beating their competition.... There are however Cis Women who are. The Reality does not reflect The Theory people are putting forth" How many trans women compete in the Olympics or world champs? Or even at national level? " So far the ONLY Transgender Olympic medal winner is Quinn, the canadian football player. Who was assigned female at birth and plays on the women's team, they are also not medically transitioning as they are non-binary | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. I'd really recommend some reading on what is meant by a social construct. Your own definition of a woman contains a social construct - "adult". At what age someone is an adult varies across time and across cultures. It's a construct, not a scientific fact. An adult is an individual that has reached sexual maturity. It is a biological term that applies to most living organisms. It is not a social construct. It is scientifically demonstrable. This is the problem that many people have when discussing sex. It's not something that applies only to human beings. If people had a better understanding of this we wouldn't see so much misrepresentation and nonsesnse being spoken on the subject." this is an interesting angle. There is a "biological" definition. But in reality we use a societal definition. Would anyone call a 13yo and adult just because she matured a bit earlier. And we also use rules of thumb to ascribe sex at birth... I don't think there is a chromosome check at that point. We assume genitals imply chromosomes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. I'd really recommend some reading on what is meant by a social construct. Your own definition of a woman contains a social construct - "adult". At what age someone is an adult varies across time and across cultures. It's a construct, not a scientific fact. An adult is an individual that has reached sexual maturity. It is a biological term that applies to most living organisms. It is not a social construct. It is scientifically demonstrable. This is the problem that many people have when discussing sex. It's not something that applies only to human beings. If people had a better understanding of this we wouldn't see so much misrepresentation and nonsesnse being spoken on the subject.this is an interesting angle. There is a "biological" definition. But in reality we use a societal definition. Would anyone call a 13yo and adult just because she matured a bit earlier. And we also use rules of thumb to ascribe sex at birth... I don't think there is a chromosome check at that point. We assume genitals imply chromosomes" Even chromosomes lie by Gender Critical standards, you can have XY chromosones and have fully functional "female" reproductive system. Biology is oh so more complicated and nuanced than we were taught in school at age ten | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This endless whataboutery and petty drivel does nothing but undermine the very subject you're clearly so passionate about. If you mean i have a problem with people denying my existence and lived experience, then yes I do. But it those that are Gender Critical who ignore every bit of science they don't agree with. I acknowledge there is science that shows extra muscle and bone density, but that alone does not equate into an advantage. It takes many things to be a good athlete, having an advantage in one does not mean you have an advantage in all, and does not mean the playing field is unfair If we take my last post here: Would you agree that a transgender woman could potentially have a 30% + strength and speed advantage over a female athlete, if the transgender woman has decided not to undergo any form of hormone treatments. That % increase in speed, could take a an average transgender woman runner to the top or near the top of a sprint. I understand that you pointing out skill and technique also plays some part in the process, but there are sports that skill and technique could be wiped out purely by a % uplift in speed or strength. Would you agree or disagree with that? First that 30% figure is off... the scientific studies people are referencing say 12%. it's still a number but the exact number should be used as it matters. My main answer to your questions is this, if what you were supposing were true, Trans Women would have been winning left right and centre for a long time. There have been many years since they could compete, and there isn't a single Trans Athlete who is consistently beating their competition.... There are however Cis Women who are. The Reality does not reflect The Theory people are putting forth" I'm not suggesting that all transgender woman would simply turn up and win. I'm suggesting that mediocre, average transgender women could, and are entering top flight competition based on their % strength and speed advantages. What is your take on this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact is that a 'woman' is not a social construct or whatever mumbo jumbo you use to try to convince other people (and yourself) that you are correct. A woman is an adult female human being. I'd really recommend some reading on what is meant by a social construct. Your own definition of a woman contains a social construct - "adult". At what age someone is an adult varies across time and across cultures. It's a construct, not a scientific fact. An adult is an individual that has reached sexual maturity. It is a biological term that applies to most living organisms. It is not a social construct. It is scientifically demonstrable. This is the problem that many people have when discussing sex. It's not something that applies only to human beings. If people had a better understanding of this we wouldn't see so much misrepresentation and nonsesnse being spoken on the subject.this is an interesting angle. There is a "biological" definition. But in reality we use a societal definition. Would anyone call a 13yo and adult just because she matured a bit earlier. And we also use rules of thumb to ascribe sex at birth... I don't think there is a chromosome check at that point. We assume genitals imply chromosomes" I kinda am on board with all you said. I mean, most people take things to face value as well! And don’t do chromosomes check to have the absolute certainty  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This endless whataboutery and petty drivel does nothing but undermine the very subject you're clearly so passionate about. If you mean i have a problem with people denying my existence and lived experience, then yes I do. But it those that are Gender Critical who ignore every bit of science they don't agree with. I acknowledge there is science that shows extra muscle and bone density, but that alone does not equate into an advantage. It takes many things to be a good athlete, having an advantage in one does not mean you have an advantage in all, and does not mean the playing field is unfair If we take my last post here: Would you agree that a transgender woman could potentially have a 30% + strength and speed advantage over a female athlete, if the transgender woman has decided not to undergo any form of hormone treatments. That % increase in speed, could take a an average transgender woman runner to the top or near the top of a sprint. I understand that you pointing out skill and technique also plays some part in the process, but there are sports that skill and technique could be wiped out purely by a % uplift in speed or strength. Would you agree or disagree with that? First that 30% figure is off... the scientific studies people are referencing say 12%. it's still a number but the exact number should be used as it matters. My main answer to your questions is this, if what you were supposing were true, Trans Women would have been winning left right and centre for a long time. There have been many years since they could compete, and there isn't a single Trans Athlete who is consistently beating their competition.... There are however Cis Women who are. The Reality does not reflect The Theory people are putting forth" That doesn’t make sense though A 12% advantage doesn’t guarantee you a 1st place win But it might get you 10th place through an unfair advantage Which would really suck if a university was giving out a scholarship to the top 10, for example. They’ve pushed out a woman due to an unfair advantage Your belief that any advantage doesn’t exist unless they win gold at the olympics and beats every record is a logical fallacy Plenty of people at the olympics have been caught cheating without being 1st. Same in the tour de France. Should we just ignore that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmm. Guess we can agree to disagree on that. I believe unfair advantages can exist whether you win or lose advantage /?d'v??nt?d?/ noun a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position. If they aren't winning by any statistical amount it is not a superior or favourable position, therefore not an advantage The science indicates that Trans women have a 12% edge in strength, even after 2 years of taking hormones to suppress testosterone. If that is the case, would you not say it was an unfair advantage at elite level, where athletes are training as hard as they can to achieve a 1% advantage? yes the science and studies also show that that 12% does not translate into greater success for whatever reason. The argument is that Transwomen will win all the competitions, but they don't. It really is that simple. Is that the argument? I thought it was “is it fair” not “who will win” " This, they might not win but they are potentially taking away places at the Olympics and other games from biological women. That is not fair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""My main answer to your questions is this, if what you were supposing were true, Trans Women would have been winning left right and centre for a long time. There have been many years since they could compete, and there isn't a single Trans Athlete who is consistently beating their competition.... There are however Cis Women who are. The Reality does not reflect The Theory people are putting forth" How many trans women compete in the Olympics or world champs? Or even at national level? So far the ONLY Transgender Olympic medal winner is Quinn, the canadian football player. Who was assigned female at birth and plays on the women's team, they are also not medically transitioning as they are non-binary" Yeah wasn't my question. Which was not how many win. But how many are compete. The fact there is no evidence that trans women are winning elite events is not evidence of the fact they don't have an unfair advantage. It's simply evidence of the fact they aren't good enough to win at the Olympics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sporting bodies have a set of measures that include or exclude an individual from competing. The problem is what criteria they measure and where the line is drawn. Hormone level is the one most seem to think is gospel because it can be accurately measured. But everyone is different. We can argue all day about that, the same way someone can argue that they're not pissed when they've failed a breathalyser test. Since the current criteria were introduced we've had a pretty good idea of how transgender women fare in competion with women. FINA clearly thought their criteria were incorrect. *There are both facts and opinions in this post" I’m sure Fina did their research and concluded what was best for the fair competition . Hopefully there will be ways found to include trans athletes into some competition open to everybody so they can keep doing what they love To conclude.. cos I’m spent, I feel like these issues really polarised views on trans people, and I hope that, if this is resolved, there will be more understanding and warming up towards trans people wanting to live a (semi) normal life, and not be seen as Freak/selfish human beings that want to trump over others
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!? "By that logic do you think that all men should finish in front of the women? Or just you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!? "Not professionally though Dan. Look at the times for marathons, athletic events etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!?
Not professionally though Dan. Look at the times for marathons, athletic events etc "I think the point he’s making is that an advantage doesn’t always equal winning. But it can still be an advantage I believe this is in response to one user saying that because trans athletes aren’t winning every competition and breaking every record, they can’t have an advantage. Otherwise they’d be winning all the time I think anyways, he might need to clarify | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!?
By that logic do you think that all men should finish in front of the women? Or just you? "No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!?
Not professionally though Dan. Look at the times for marathons, athletic events etc
I think the point he’s making is that an advantage doesn’t always equal winning. But it can still be an advantage
I believe this is in response to one user saying that because trans athletes aren’t winning every competition and breaking every record, they can’t have an advantage. Otherwise they’d be winning all the time
I think anyways, he might need to clarify " this - yes.
I didn’t explain very well reading it back. But just because they’re not winning doesn’t mean they don’t have an inherent biological advantage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!?
Not professionally though Dan. Look at the times for marathons, athletic events etc
I think the point he’s making is that an advantage doesn’t always equal winning. But it can still be an advantage
I believe this is in response to one user saying that because trans athletes aren’t winning every competition and breaking every record, they can’t have an advantage. Otherwise they’d be winning all the time
I think anyways, he might need to clarify
this - yes.
I didn’t explain very well reading it back. But just because they’re not winning doesn’t mean they don’t have an inherent biological advantage. "Ah right. I’m confused. I’ll take the FAF | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example " I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not diving too deeply into this debate as it’s a bloody minefield but I’ll say this on the “trans women aren’t winning lots of gold medals hence have no advantage” thing. I do a park run every Saturday morning. As a “cis” (grrr bloody hate that term) male I definitely benefit from the biological characteristics / athletic advantages that males have over females, yet every week many women absolutely spank my time and finish well ahead of me, when surely I should be finishing above them? So I don’t really think that argument, in isolation, holds much weight really. Anyway. Popping my head back under the parapet again. Anyone fancy a fuck!?
Not professionally though Dan. Look at the times for marathons, athletic events etc
I think the point he’s making is that an advantage doesn’t always equal winning. But it can still be an advantage
I believe this is in response to one user saying that because trans athletes aren’t winning every competition and breaking every record, they can’t have an advantage. Otherwise they’d be winning all the time
I think anyways, he might need to clarify
this - yes.
I didn’t explain very well reading it back. But just because they’re not winning doesn’t mean they don’t have an inherent biological advantage.
Ah right. I’m confused. I’ll take the FAF"Basically an elite “cis” female will still beat a mediocre man. But someone who might be only be halfway in a field of men, might finish in the top 20% of women. The top women will still beat them but they graduate up the rankings in a field of women. If that makes sense?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been" What is your opinion on athletes who take performance enhancing drugs? Should they be banned or allowed to compete? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been" Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? " the 12% figure is the advantage a transgender woman will have after 2 years on hormone treatments. It is much higher than this for transgender woman who has not undergone any forms of treatment. you can google first part of this post and you will find the studies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? " This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? " Not the 12% one but a study done last year had this to say “ We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? Not the 12% one but a study done last year had this to say “ We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.”" Yes but unlike the first study th one you reference looked at only testosterone levels, it ignored the effect of the rest of Hormone therapy which affects your body... unlike the one I referenced which did factor that in | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I’m saying that those people saying there’s no advantage held by Transwomen over “cis” women because they’re not all winning gold medals have a flawed argument. Because THEY seem to be saying that if there was an advantage then by definition the trans men would win everything. But that’s not always the case is it, as cis men don’t always beat cis women, as evidenced by Park run example I never disputed the 12% advantage that scientist have pointed to. it is the science. I disputed that it was an unfair advantage. If an advantage that comes from genetics is automatically unfair, are you saying we should strip Michael Phelps of all his accomplishments because he has a genetic deviation which means he doesn't generate lactic acid like his competitors? And while we are at it, sport isn't fair... it never has been Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? Not the 12% one but a study done last year had this to say “ We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.” Yes but unlike the first study th one you reference looked at only testosterone levels, it ignored the effect of the rest of Hormone therapy which affects your body... unlike the one I referenced which did factor that in" Not sure if you missed this further up but would like to know you opinion on this: What is your opinion on athletes who take performance enhancing drugs? Should they be banned or allowed to compete? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“ The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women. Thus, while this research is important to understand the isolated effects of testosterone suppression, it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond.” So that study was on untrained trans women too So we could predict the advantage in trained athletes is even bigger. "Again Testosterone is only one factor on how Hormone Therapy affects the body, by looking at that and only that you do not get the full picture | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short" Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“ The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women. Thus, while this research is important to understand the isolated effects of testosterone suppression, it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond.” So that study was on untrained trans women too So we could predict the advantage in trained athletes is even bigger.
Again Testosterone is only one factor on how Hormone Therapy affects the body, by looking at that and only that you do not get the full picture"They found advantages in transitioned untrained women Think that’ll do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review." yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about" The idea that you believe that they don’t have an advantage is ludicrous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“ The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women. Thus, while this research is important to understand the isolated effects of testosterone suppression, it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond.” So that study was on untrained trans women too So we could predict the advantage in trained athletes is even bigger.
Again Testosterone is only one factor on how Hormone Therapy affects the body, by looking at that and only that you do not get the full picture
They found advantages in transitioned untrained women
Think that’ll do "Yes but they only measured testosterone, they did not measure anything else. Which makes the data faulty and the results are questionable. its like me showing you results (and I am being deliberately absurd for the purpose of displaying the point) that a school kids who got their windows cleaned on tuesdays got better test results... does that mean the window cleaning is responsible... no, there is data missing from the study | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that Trans Women have an unfair advantage is ludicrous, if this were true Trans Women would have been dominating most sports for decades. Trans Women do have generally large frames and bigger bone density but this does not mean they will be better. There isn't a single Trans competitor that consistently dominates their field. The closest is Quinn the Canadian football player, but they are non-binary assigned female at birth playing in the women's league. Which is not what this argument is about The idea that you believe that they don’t have an advantage is ludicrous." Didn't say they didn't have an advantage, I quite clearly said they did, I said they didn't have an Unfair advantage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“ The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women. Thus, while this research is important to understand the isolated effects of testosterone suppression, it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond.” So that study was on untrained trans women too So we could predict the advantage in trained athletes is even bigger.
Again Testosterone is only one factor on how Hormone Therapy affects the body, by looking at that and only that you do not get the full picture
They found advantages in transitioned untrained women
Think that’ll do
Yes but they only measured testosterone, they did not measure anything else. Which makes the data faulty and the results are questionable.
its like me showing you results (and I am being deliberately absurd for the purpose of displaying the point) that a school kids who got their windows cleaned on tuesdays got better test results... does that mean the window cleaning is responsible... no, there is data missing from the study"I don’t think your correct there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thank you also! I really do find it difficult to ask these questions, as you never know whether someone might take offence where none is intended, and that does worry me. So thank you for getting where I'm coming from. I think, but I'm not certain, that there are some cases where people go through puberty before 12, but not many. I would imagine, however, that a majority of trans people would know from early on that they aren't "right" (I really couldn't think of the way to put that, again, no offence intended, my brain is mush today), so 12 isn't actually as early in life as maybe it seems to those of us who have no experience of the feelings? Still seems young to have to had actioned anything though! if we take myself as an example (I am also autistic which throws a complication into things) I never connected with boy/man/male/masc at any point in my life. But being autistic you mask and try to live how others perceive you in order to survive in an all too cruel society. It was only when I knew I was autistic I could peel back the layers of the masking and find my true self." Children develop their gender identity very early and very strongly. At a very young age they've sussed out what they consider to be boy/girl clothes, toys, activities and can be incredibly strong minded about what they will or won't do. For some reason, no one questions when a 4 year old insists they're not doing x or y because they're a boy or girl and that statement matches their genitalia. No doubt, some will have a rant about how wrong it is that the clothing/colour/activity in question has been given a gender stereotype by our society and decry all such stereotyping but no one questions the fact that the child has strong opinions on their gender. For those who blame things like "pink washing" girls stuff, the child has simply picked up on social cues. For those who believe there is an inherent difference between boys and girls, this early gender selection is proffered as proof of their beliefs. However, when its someone saying that by the age of 3 or 4 they knew they didn't want to be the gender assigned by their biology there is a group of people in both camps who have difficulty accepting that any child can have a clue what their gender is so early and insist that this is somehow unhealthy. In fact I would go so far as to say the people most likely to have a 'let boys be boys and girls be girls' attitude are the ones most likely to support their own child's gender stereotyped choices at a very young age while simultaneously struggling to accept the account of a trans person when they say that they knew they had been assigned the wrong gender from as early as they can remember. Equally, the most ardent feminists who make claims about how society is affecting little girls by altering the way they think, feel and behave virtually from birth are sometimes the very same people as those who refuse to accept a child born with male genitals is equally capable of absorbing such gender stereotypes. Why we form a gender identity so early and so strongly and why for approximately 1% of people this identity is at odds with their biological sex is a hotly debated topic - anyone claiming there is scientific consensus on the causes of this is suffering from severe cognitive bias. It is quite possible to find widely respected scientists, phsycologists, neurobiologists etc who insist variously that beyond our genitals there is no such thing as gender, it is all a social construct and the result of our brains learning the stereotypes of our society. It is equally possible to find others who insist that there absolutely is a difference, that evolutionary pressures will inevitably lead to behavioral, and therfore brain, differences between the sexes. The more of these authors I read, the more I find they all make sure to include an explanation as to why their thinking supports trans rights in their books but this explanation is invariably brief and presented with a lot less rigorous arguments than the rest of their ideas
Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that when a trans person says they've known their gender all their life that this is absolutely true. Why this is the case and how society needs to change to include this are however occasionally far harder questions to answer as the debate above clearly shows.
Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To try to clarify Advantages don’t have to result in winning to still be unfair Giving me a 5 minute head start at a marathon doesn’t guarantee me a 1st place finish. But it’s still unfair and there’s going to be people I beat because of that Taking steroids doesn’t mean you’ll win either. Plenty of athletes have been popped for using steroids after not winning. It’s still unfair though. And the science is telling us that trans women still keep a lot of their physical advantages after transitioning Does that mean they’ll win every competition they enter? No But is it fair on the other people competing? I don’t believe so. Because even if you don’t win, you are still competing unfairly and you could be placing cis women out of the competition For example, imagine a race at county level where the top 15 competitors go on compete at the national level. Now imagine a trans woman places 15th. She’s effectively pushed whoever came 16th out of competing at the national level through a potential unfair advantage. Just because you don’t win doesn’t make everything ok " I agree with what you said about the advantage doesn’t guarantee a win. but I have a feeling that yes that’s an argument but also I think, to play devil’s advocate, if there was no actual advantage at all and it was proven completely and backed by science. There’d still be some people who will think. “It’s wrong because trans women are men, and they are taking away from actual women” Yes, I said it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To try to clarify Advantages don’t have to result in winning to still be unfair Giving me a 5 minute head start at a marathon doesn’t guarantee me a 1st place finish. But it’s still unfair and there’s going to be people I beat because of that Taking steroids doesn’t mean you’ll win either. Plenty of athletes have been popped for using steroids after not winning. It’s still unfair though. And the science is telling us that trans women still keep a lot of their physical advantages after transitioning Does that mean they’ll win every competition they enter? No But is it fair on the other people competing? I don’t believe so. Because even if you don’t win, you are still competing unfairly and you could be placing cis women out of the competition For example, imagine a race at county level where the top 15 competitors go on compete at the national level. Now imagine a trans woman places 15th. She’s effectively pushed whoever came 16th out of competing at the national level through a potential unfair advantage. Just because you don’t win doesn’t make everything ok I agree with what you said about the advantage doesn’t guarantee a win. but I have a feeling that yes that’s an argument but also I think, to play devil’s advocate, if there was no actual advantage at all and it was proven completely and backed by science. There’d still be some people who will think. “It’s wrong because trans women are men, and they are taking away from actual women” Yes, I said it "Or better, If there was a trans woman who transitioned before 12, and it came out she was transgender. Some would still be saying. It’s not fair, because she was born a “man” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To try to clarify Advantages don’t have to result in winning to still be unfair Giving me a 5 minute head start at a marathon doesn’t guarantee me a 1st place finish. But it’s still unfair and there’s going to be people I beat because of that Taking steroids doesn’t mean you’ll win either. Plenty of athletes have been popped for using steroids after not winning. It’s still unfair though. And the science is telling us that trans women still keep a lot of their physical advantages after transitioning Does that mean they’ll win every competition they enter? No But is it fair on the other people competing? I don’t believe so. Because even if you don’t win, you are still competing unfairly and you could be placing cis women out of the competition For example, imagine a race at county level where the top 15 competitors go on compete at the national level. Now imagine a trans woman places 15th. She’s effectively pushed whoever came 16th out of competing at the national level through a potential unfair advantage. Just because you don’t win doesn’t make everything ok I agree with what you said about the advantage doesn’t guarantee a win. but I have a feeling that yes that’s an argument but also I think, to play devil’s advocate, if there was no actual advantage at all and it was proven completely and backed by science. There’d still be some people who will think. “It’s wrong because trans women are men, and they are taking away from actual women” Yes, I said it "And those people would be entirely in the wrong But that’s not what this is about. So far we have evidence there is an advantage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole" Can testosterone levels be reduced to IOC standards for female events without the use of HRT? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To try to clarify Advantages don’t have to result in winning to still be unfair Giving me a 5 minute head start at a marathon doesn’t guarantee me a 1st place finish. But it’s still unfair and there’s going to be people I beat because of that Taking steroids doesn’t mean you’ll win either. Plenty of athletes have been popped for using steroids after not winning. It’s still unfair though. And the science is telling us that trans women still keep a lot of their physical advantages after transitioning Does that mean they’ll win every competition they enter? No But is it fair on the other people competing? I don’t believe so. Because even if you don’t win, you are still competing unfairly and you could be placing cis women out of the competition For example, imagine a race at county level where the top 15 competitors go on compete at the national level. Now imagine a trans woman places 15th. She’s effectively pushed whoever came 16th out of competing at the national level through a potential unfair advantage. Just because you don’t win doesn’t make everything ok I agree with what you said about the advantage doesn’t guarantee a win. but I have a feeling that yes that’s an argument but also I think, to play devil’s advocate, if there was no actual advantage at all and it was proven completely and backed by science. There’d still be some people who will think. “It’s wrong because trans women are men, and they are taking away from actual women” Yes, I said it
Or better, If there was a trans woman who transitioned before 12, and it came out she was transgender. Some would still be saying. It’s not fair, because she was born a “man”"Now that’s a more interesting debate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or better, If there was a trans woman who transitioned before 12, and it came out she was transgender. Some would still be saying. It’s not fair, because she was born a “man”" And that is what so much of these arguments are about. It isn't fairness in sport, it isn't about protecting women it is about bashing trans people. If it was about the other things then they would be up in arms about so much more than if a Trans Girl wants to swim | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole Can testosterone levels be reduced to IOC standards for female events without the use of HRT?" I don't know, but they can occur naturally in cis women at a level which disqualifies them from competing. (it happened at the last olympics) These rules don't just hurt trans athletes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole Can testosterone levels be reduced to IOC standards for female events without the use of HRT? I don't know, but they can occur naturally in cis women at a level which disqualifies them from competing. (it happened at the last olympics) These rules don't just hurt trans athletes" So, theoretically, somebody could reduce their testosterone levels to IOC standards, then completely reverse the effect over a period of time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole Can testosterone levels be reduced to IOC standards for female events without the use of HRT? I don't know, but they can occur naturally in cis women at a level which disqualifies them from competing. (it happened at the last olympics) These rules don't just hurt trans athletes So, theoretically, somebody could reduce their testosterone levels to IOC standards, then completely reverse the effect over a period of time?" Testosterone levels are not the debate. The debate is whether it is fair for trans women to compete with cs women. Testosterone is only a tiny fraction of this. But sure get this thread closer to locking with irrelevant questions I guess | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole Can testosterone levels be reduced to IOC standards for female events without the use of HRT? I don't know, but they can occur naturally in cis women at a level which disqualifies them from competing. (it happened at the last olympics) These rules don't just hurt trans athletes" There's always splash damage with this kind of stuff. Always. Not that it's a bad thing to "only" care about the targeted minority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To try to clarify Advantages don’t have to result in winning to still be unfair Giving me a 5 minute head start at a marathon doesn’t guarantee me a 1st place finish. But it’s still unfair and there’s going to be people I beat because of that Taking steroids doesn’t mean you’ll win either. Plenty of athletes have been popped for using steroids after not winning. It’s still unfair though. And the science is telling us that trans women still keep a lot of their physical advantages after transitioning Does that mean they’ll win every competition they enter? No But is it fair on the other people competing? I don’t believe so. Because even if you don’t win, you are still competing unfairly and you could be placing cis women out of the competition For example, imagine a race at county level where the top 15 competitors go on compete at the national level. Now imagine a trans woman places 15th. She’s effectively pushed whoever came 16th out of competing at the national level through a potential unfair advantage. Just because you don’t win doesn’t make everything ok I agree with what you said about the advantage doesn’t guarantee a win. but I have a feeling that yes that’s an argument but also I think, to play devil’s advocate, if there was no actual advantage at all and it was proven completely and backed by science. There’d still be some people who will think. “It’s wrong because trans women are men, and they are taking away from actual women” Yes, I said it
Or better, If there was a trans woman who transitioned before 12, and it came out she was transgender. Some would still be saying. It’s not fair, because she was born a “man”
Now that’s a more interesting debate "It is an interesting debate , but I know it’d always be (for some) the argument of “You are coming at our own expense for being actual women (or men) - and it doesn’t feel right” And it branches out to other areas, not only sport (tho arguments for other fields might be more …airtight) But hey, what do I know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truly, like truly truly, what impact does this have on YOUR life? Like truly? Like be fr " It's psychologically rewarding to lash out, and who better to lash out at than a tiny persecuted minority? Particularly when you can pretend to be virtuous by protecting poor poor helpless women? It's just primitive revolting bullshit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a link to the study that suggests the 12% figure please? This is a guardian article about the study, it goes on to point out the study is saying that Trans Athletes need to transition for longer to not have that "advantage" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short Thank you. I found that article before, and it is a bit old. Science changes all the time, depending on the methodology of the particular study. My last post was from a much more recent review. yeah the one that has been brought up since which is flawed because it only looked at Testosterone, and not HRT as a whole Can testosterone levels be reduced to IOC standards for female events without the use of HRT? I don't know, but they can occur naturally in cis women at a level which disqualifies them from competing. (it happened at the last olympics) These rules don't just hurt trans athletes So, theoretically, somebody could reduce their testosterone levels to IOC standards, then completely reverse the effect over a period of time? Testosterone levels are not the debate. The debate is whether it is fair for trans women to compete with cs women. Testosterone is only a tiny fraction of this. But sure get this thread closer to locking with irrelevant questions I guess" How typically rude. What may be irrelevant to you isn't irrelevant to everyone. Testosterone levels is how the IOC defines suitable qualification for a trans woman to compete in female Olympic events, so it's entirely relevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the jig is up Committee’s played it safe while the science was unclear. Didn’t want to offend anyone. Now more and more studies are confirming what we all knew was true from the start. There is an advantage. Cause a disadvantage makes competition unfair and unsafe more and more committees will adopt these new rules of banning trans athletes I think it’s the right thing to do" everything you said there is opinion. There are more and more studies coming out on both sides of the argument. Not all of them on either side are particularly reliable, because some of them are looking to confirm an answer, not find one. (The gender critical are notorious for this) As proven by this discussion we all didn't know anything from the start, and you are looking for confirmation bias. And many of the reports on studies used against Trans athletes are taken out of context, or they ignore significant parts of the findings. You can think it is the right thing to do that is your right. Doesn't mean you are right and it doesn't mean your are making an informed or educated decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truly, like truly truly, what impact does this have on YOUR life? Like truly? Like be fr It's psychologically rewarding to lash out, and who better to lash out at than a tiny persecuted minority? Particularly when you can pretend to be virtuous by protecting poor poor helpless women? It's just primitive revolting bullshit "No it’s not! Trying to understand and having opinions on this is not anti-trans! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or better, If there was a trans woman who transitioned before 12, and it came out she was transgender. Some would still be saying. It’s not fair, because she was born a “man” And that is what so much of these arguments are about. It isn't fairness in sport, it isn't about protecting women it is about bashing trans people. If it was about the other things then they would be up in arms about so much more than if a Trans Girl wants to swim" Not seen anything bashing anybody... Its about keeping sports fair. That's all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the jig is up Committee’s played it safe while the science was unclear. Didn’t want to offend anyone. Now more and more studies are confirming what we all knew was true from the start. There is an advantage. Cause a disadvantage makes competition unfair and unsafe more and more committees will adopt these new rules of banning trans athletes I think it’s the right thing to do everything you said there is opinion. There are more and more studies coming out on both sides of the argument. Not all of them on either side are particularly reliable, because some of them are looking to confirm an answer, not find one. (The gender critical are notorious for this) As proven by this discussion we all didn't know anything from the start, and you are looking for confirmation bias. And many of the reports on studies used against Trans athletes are taken out of context, or they ignore significant parts of the findings. You can think it is the right thing to do that is your right. Doesn't mean you are right and it doesn't mean your are making an informed or educated decision." To be fair, you couldn’t even link me the poll you spoke about earlier in the thread. So I take everything you say with a grain of salt Where are these studies on both sides? Or will you conventionally forget to link them too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truly, like truly truly, what impact does this have on YOUR life? Like truly? Like be fr It's psychologically rewarding to lash out, and who better to lash out at than a tiny persecuted minority? Particularly when you can pretend to be virtuous by protecting poor poor helpless women? It's just primitive revolting bullshit "Don't agree with you there swing. There's an openly trans child in my kids school. Which I happen to think is great that they can be at such an early age (go their parents). But there are questions especially as they get older with some sports. I think it's better for people to question on forums like this than at the school gates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How typically rude. What may be irrelevant to you isn't irrelevant to everyone. Testosterone levels is how the IOC defines suitable qualification for a trans woman to compete in female Olympic events, so it's entirely relevant. " yup, by your own words you have proven how your question was irrelevant. The IOC defines suitability by testosterone levels at the competition. Whether it is possible for their levels to return to other levels after that is nothing to do with that. Pointing this out is not rude. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truly, like truly truly, what impact does this have on YOUR life? Like truly? Like be fr It's psychologically rewarding to lash out, and who better to lash out at than a tiny persecuted minority? Particularly when you can pretend to be virtuous by protecting poor poor helpless women? It's just primitive revolting bullshit "Can I say that It’s particularly hypocritical when the fieriest arguments come from (SOMEEEE) men, who then, don’t give a shit about (or shit all over) women in other areas? ….Just saying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truly, like truly truly, what impact does this have on YOUR life? Like truly? Like be fr It's psychologically rewarding to lash out, and who better to lash out at than a tiny persecuted minority? Particularly when you can pretend to be virtuous by protecting poor poor helpless women? It's just primitive revolting bullshit "What have you seen people lashing out against trans women in the thread. I know people see what they want to see.. But Im interested as what I see is an argument about of there is an advantage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truly, like truly truly, what impact does this have on YOUR life? Like truly? Like be fr " Just because you don't believe it has an impact on anyone else's life, it doesn't make it true. My niece is a very successful high school level runner in the US and a possible scholarship to an Ivy League is in jeopardy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
