First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics

[ZedLeg]

Northernboy said:

ZedLeg said:

What happens if you're born without a uterus?

You still seem to have no idea what’s meant by make and female. How can you not even understand the basics yet have such a strong view?

Do you know what it means, scientifically, to be female? It seems not.

Again you’ve quoted me out of context to try and score a point. If you’d left the original comment there it would’ve been perfectly clear why I was asking that.

[p2c]

Northernboy said:

p2c said:

Nobody cared about trans people in sport until the heritage foundation in conjunction with a few key gender critical from the UK decided it was the next front they were going to open up against us. Shortly thereafter despite no trans athletes being in any elite competitive position it all blew up. We had no say in it, all trans people can do is defend ourselvs with the knowledge that HRT makes a hell of a difference, one that no cis person can understand as no other groups of healthy people eliminate testosterone from their bodies.

Nor do trans people. They are only required to reduce it, but not to the level of women.

The dishonesty you employ is disappointing. If you had a genuine argument you could employ it honestly.

I’m with Caitlin Jenner on this. Presumably you think she’s transphobic for agreeing with me and most others on this?

There are three ways to reduce testosterone.

1) Gender reassignment surgery. Testosterone will be reduced to well below a tyipical cis females
2) GNRHa Drugs - These will eliminate testosterone to castrate levels as above
3) Oestrogen Therapy, The Oestrogen is similar enough that the body recognises it as meeting the body's needs for sex hormones and therefore reduces the demand on the testicles to make more. Its unreliable and requires such high doses in most people its preferable to use alternative methods to reduce the risk of harm.

There are other drugs such as Finasteride, cyproterone acetate and spironolactone which are used in transition in some countries due to cost of GNRHa. They do not on the whole prevent testosterone production but rather block the effects, An athlete using these will struggle to meet IOC regulations reliably if at all and T levels will be more like (3) above..

For reference my Testosterone as a trans women is 0.6 nmol/L which is WELL below both the 10 nmol/L IOC qualification and the IAAF reduced levels of 5 nmol/l for specific events and well below the vast majority of cis women. So yes I do have an ounce nmol of an idea what I'm talking about.

Edited by p2c on Friday 25th June 23:25

[MC Bodge]

gregs656 said:

Northernboy said:

gregs656 said:

They are trans women, and recognised as such.

Yes, trans women are men who live as women. Some people want to claim that they are women, some people also want to claim that they are female.

A trans woman is to a woman as a pommel horse is to a horse.

You just cannot help your self but be demeaning. It's so unnecessary.

Agreed. There is no need for people to be deliberately unpleasant.

[ZedLeg]

Every one of these points has been used at least once during this discussion.

[chrispmartha]

Northernboy said:

chrispmartha said:

Forgive me if i think someone who uses the term ‘trannies’ is being disingenuous when he says he wants trans people to be supported.

You really didn’t get the point of that post did you? You just merrily continued using your slur while being triggered that someone used an equivalent one as an example of how yours come across.

What slur?

Oh you were being ironic using the word ‘trannies’ were you, I don’t believe you.

[anonymous-user]

p2c said:

Maybe because WHRC, a groups of prominent gender critical people, gave evidence to parliament calling for the elimination of transgenderism using a UN convention

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mps-urged-anti-trans-wom...

You realise penis news is not a reputable sources of information and is basically a blog.

And you also know the whrc did not call for the elimination of transgenderism.

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

Iwantafusca said:

95% of men don’t think transwomen are women either.

Where have you got that stat from?

95% of men in the uk are straight according to statistics, and would not have a relationship with a transwoman as they are biologically male.

Of course some men are “woke in the street , terf in the sheets” lol

[chrispmartha]

Iwantafusca said:

chrispmartha said:

Iwantafusca said:

95% of men don’t think transwomen are women either.

Where have you got that stat from?

95% of men in the uk are straight according to statistics, and would not have a relationship with a transwoman as they are biologically male.

Of course some men are “woke in the street , terf in the sheets” lol

So your stat is a load of rubbish then

[anonymous-user]

ZedLeg said:

Iwantafusca said:

ZedLeg said:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/14/anti-trans-l...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/new...

https://globalcomment.com/feminist-transphobia-and...

Feel free to keep calling me a misogynist though. It just proves me right.

So let me see , a homophobic man gives support to “feminist “ (his words) group of lesbians , and they have no contact or interaction with him and that’s a link ? Btw pink news is hardly a news source.

The othe two are about posie parker who i believe is not in charge of women , lesbians , gender critical people etc etc ?

What’s your point ?

You are a misogynist if you support men in women’s spheres of life.

95% of men don’t think transwomen are women either.

If you don’t think that Posie Parker and the groups she works with are influential in the GC movement then you’re either commenting on issues you don’t understand or are being deliberately disingenuous.

You know a lot of GC women agree with some of her views and disagree with a lot of her others ? You know like normal people ?

GC isn’t a army with membership and rules and leaders you know , mainly ordinary women of all ages and all classes and groups.

She’s not the messiah you know lol

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

Iwantafusca said:

chrispmartha said:

Iwantafusca said:

95% of men don’t think transwomen are women either.

Where have you got that stat from?

95% of men in the uk are straight according to statistics, and would not have a relationship with a transwoman as they are biologically male.

Of course some men are “woke in the street , terf in the sheets” lol

So your stat is a load of rubbish then

No straight man will have sex with a transwoman , the clue is in the word straight

[anonymous-user]

ZedLeg said:

Every one of these points has been used at least once during this discussion.

Five of them are correct

[anonymous-user]

How it started in the Olympics


https://nequals8.com/

"N=8" denotes the number of male born runners it took to change the rules of sport for ALL female athletes in the world across ALL sports.

[Trackdayer]

Iwantafusca said:

No straight man will have sex with a transwoman , the clue is in the word straight

I know a few straight guys that would...



Gender aside, he/she/it is definitely more attractive than most "real" women.

Would anyone honestly kick he/she/it out of bed for Susan Boyle?

Edited by Trackdayer on Saturday 26th June 09:39

[768]

Iwantafusca said:

ZedLeg said:

Every one of these points has been used at least once during this discussion.

Five of them are correct

I'm not sure about the number, but it's a tactic already seen in this thread to conflate legitimate concerns with those which are not in order to play the transphobic card - the very thing the tweet complains about in painting an ordinary person as a monster.

It offers nothing of substance for the issues at hand.

[anonymous-user]

Trackdayer said:

Iwantafusca said:

No straight man will have sex with a transwoman , the clue is in the word straight

I know a few straight guys that would...



Gender aside, he/she/it is definitely more attractive than most "real" women.

Would anyone honestly kick he/she/it out of bed for Susan Boyle?

Edited by Trackdayer on Saturday 26th June 09:39

Then they aren’t straight then ! Lol

If you are into cock or it’s replacement of a open wound/hole then knock yourself out , bisexuality is a human right too :-)

[Newc]

768 said:

I'm not sure about the number, but it's a tactic already seen in this thread to conflate legitimate concerns with those which are not in order to play the transphobic card - the very thing the tweet complains about in painting an ordinary person as a monster.

It offers nothing of substance for the issues at hand.

Yep, routine deflection technique to try and avoid answering the point.

"It is a fact that trans-women have intrinsic biological advantages of strength and muscle mass over women. I am therefore concerned that permitting trans-women to enter into women's sports will mean that women will be unfairly displaced from competitions."

"Ah, so what you're saying is that trans-women are dishonest deceivers, trying to steal accomplishments from women athletes. Bigot!"

[p2c]

Iwantafusca said:

p2c said:

Maybe because WHRC, a groups of prominent gender critical people, gave evidence to parliament calling for the elimination of transgenderism using a UN convention

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mps-urged-anti-trans-wom...

You realise penis news is not a reputable sources of information and is basically a blog.

And you also know the whrc did not call for the elimination of transgenderism.

You can ridicule the source as much as you like, but the quote and extracted section is lifted directly from their submission to parliament, you can look it up at source if you like its part of W&ESC GRA inquiry but I'm not going to actively share a link to all their other arguments.

As for the content, perhaps you can explain why perverting the UN CEDAW declaration which does call for the elimination of certain practices and likening "transgenderism" as one of those practices is not calling for the elimination of "transgenderism". it is exactly that.

[anonymous-user]

p2c said:

You can ridicule the source as much as you like, but the quote and extracted section is lifted directly from their submission to parliament, you can look it up at source if you like its part of W&ESC GRA inquiry but I'm not going to actively share a link to all their other arguments.

As for the content, perhaps you can explain why perverting the UN CEDAW declaration which does call for the elimination of certain practices and likening "transgenderism" as one of those practices is not calling for the elimination of "transgenderism". it is exactly that.

From the whrc website:

Frequently Asked Questions


“The Declaration erases trans people”


Affirming women’s human rights as based on sex cannot ‘erase’ anyone.

“WHRC/Declaration believes that trans people should not exist”

The Declaration does argue that men with a female gender identity should not be included in the category women in the context of women’s human rights. It is unreasonable hyperbole to suggest that this can cause any person not to exist.

“There is no conflict between women’s rights and trans-rights”

The Declaration states quite clearly that there is a conflict and gives many examples where this is the case such as the placing of men who are violent sex offenders in women’s prisons, and the inclusion of men in women’s sporting competitions.

“Declaration solely focused on stigmatising transpeople/removing their rights”

The Declaration does argue that men with a female gender identity should not be included in the category women in the context of women’s human rights. It is unreasonable to suggest that promoting women’s rights ‘stigmatises’ any group of men, or removes rights from them.

“WHRC/the Declaration is anti-trans/transphobic”

The Declaration does not contain any insults towards men with female gender identities except to say that they cannot be included in the category of women in relation to human rights without threatening the rights of women. This may make such men feel uncomfortable but is not ‘transphobic’.

“WHRC refers to trans people as parasites”

This word does not appear in the Declaration or any publications by the WHRC.

“The Declaration takes rights from trans people”

See above. The Declaration argues that men who have female gender identities should not be included in the category of women in relation to human rights. Men who consider themselves ‘trans’ hold all the other rights that men have always possessed. Those are not taken away. The WHRC considers that all persons who act in ways which do not conform with sex stereotypes should be protected from discrimination.

“WHRC are monsters/fascists/is a hate group”

There is nothing hateful about women seeking to protect their sex-based rights. This might make some men feel uncomfortable, but it is quite an overreaction to call feminists monsters/fascists.

“WHRC/the Declaration are funded by/linked to US far right groups”

There is no truth in this. Please indicate your sources.

“WHRC is campaigning against minority rights”

WHRC is seeking to reaffirm the human rights of women as set out in UN documents. There is no campaigning against any other group of persons.

[chrispmartha]

Iwantafusca said:

No straight man will have sex with a transwoman , the clue is in the word straight

Even if that was true, that’s not what you said is it.

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

Iwantafusca said:

No straight man will have sex with a transwoman , the clue is in the word straight

Even if that was true, that’s not what you said is it.

95% of men are straight and will not have sex with another bio male / transwoman.