First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics
Discussion
Newc said:
chrispmartha said:
Northernboy said:
Newc said:
Haven't got time today to pitch in on every post but just wanted to say you are bang on with everything you have said.
Thanks.I do feel quite strongly about this. A lot of women are getting very badly treated, and not much is being done about it.
The evidence is there, the flood of negative press about trans issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
Newc said:
Nonsense. The topic of trans people has suddenly blown up because a bunch of noisy activists have decided to make it a thing, for reasons which aren't entirely clear but are probably rooted somewhere in their continued access to money and funding.
Calls my post nonsense then comes out with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Ok.ZedLeg said:
Are you sure it’s not the other way around? A network of virulent transphobes with funding from Christian Right wing groups co ordinating attacks on a vulnerable minority as a wedge issue into attacks on the wider lgbt+ community?
The evidence is there, the flood of negative press about trans issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
An yet the topic is basically about a trans person competing in a females' event in top flight sport. No one is saying trans people should not be treated with respect or that transphobia is not bad. Its skimpily are trans people different to cis people to an extent that means sporting events need additional categories. It seems the only people who don't want a balanced trans category are trans athletes who stand to gain from competing against women.The evidence is there, the flood of negative press about trans issues didn’t come out of nowhere.
SO why can we not have CIS Olympics, Para Olympics, Trans Olympics etc seems that would be fair
ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
Ok so should the events in the Olympics be compromised because of a tiny minority of athletes then. I recall when Oscar pitoriouse was getting to the point he could compete in the main Olympics his differences (blades, not his murderous desires), were deemed unfair so he could not compete.This is no different an advantage that tilts the balance is not a level playing field. SO Castor can't compete and Oscar can't and so some trans people can't. While trans and gay are not the same thing (LGBTQ+) I am sure there is a gay Olympics or such like. So why not have a trans element there either way sport has to be balanced and so some people cant compete with others.
Gecko1978 said:
ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
Ok so should the events in the Olympics be compromised because of a tiny minority of athletes then. I recall when Oscar pitoriouse was getting to the point he could compete in the main Olympics his differences (blades, not his murderous desires), were deemed unfair so he could not compete.This is no different an advantage that tilts the balance is not a level playing field. SO Castor can't compete and Oscar can't and so some trans people can't. While trans and gay are not the same thing (LGBTQ+) I am sure there is a gay Olympics or such like. So why not have a trans element there either way sport has to be balanced and so some people cant compete with others.
Why not do what’s normally done in these situations. Let people compete under the rules that have been set and if the rules prove to give an advantage revise them. I don’t remember international campaigns against Oscar Pistorius when he ran in the Paralympics.
ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
So instead of telling that tiny minority of a minority they're not eligible they thought it better to ruin women's sport? ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
Especially if you add in the number of people who were born as women who want to transition and compete against the men. That seems to be a vanishingly small number. I wonder why that is?
ZedLeg said:
Gay olympics?
Why not do what’s normally done in these situations. Let people compete under the rules that have been set and if the rules prove to give an advantage revise them. I don’t remember international campaigns against Oscar Pistorius when he ran in the Paralympics.
You've just beaten your own arguments.Why not do what’s normally done in these situations. Let people compete under the rules that have been set and if the rules prove to give an advantage revise them. I don’t remember international campaigns against Oscar Pistorius when he ran in the Paralympics.
"If there is an advantage, change the rules"
Given it's 100% accepted that there is an advantage, does this mean you get it now and you've changed your mind?
If not, how do you reconcile your position?
bodhi said:
ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
Especially if you add in the number of people who were born as women who want to transition and compete against the men. That seems to be a vanishingly small number. I wonder why that is?
Dagnir said:
ZedLeg said:
Gay olympics?
Why not do what’s normally done in these situations. Let people compete under the rules that have been set and if the rules prove to give an advantage revise them. I don’t remember international campaigns against Oscar Pistorius when he ran in the Paralympics.
You've just beaten your own arguments.Why not do what’s normally done in these situations. Let people compete under the rules that have been set and if the rules prove to give an advantage revise them. I don’t remember international campaigns against Oscar Pistorius when he ran in the Paralympics.
"If there is an advantage, change the rules"
Given it's 100% accepted that there is an advantage, does this mean you get it now and you've changed your mind?
If not, how do you reconcile your position?
ZedLeg said:
Gecko1978 said:
ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
Ok so should the events in the Olympics be compromised because of a tiny minority of athletes then. I recall when Oscar pitoriouse was getting to the point he could compete in the main Olympics his differences (blades, not his murderous desires), were deemed unfair so he could not compete.This is no different an advantage that tilts the balance is not a level playing field. SO Castor can't compete and Oscar can't and so some trans people can't. While trans and gay are not the same thing (LGBTQ+) I am sure there is a gay Olympics or such like. So why not have a trans element there either way sport has to be balanced and so some people cant compete with others.
Why not do what’s normally done in these situations. Let people compete under the rules that have been set and if the rules prove to give an advantage revise them. I don’t remember international campaigns against Oscar Pistorius when he ran in the Paralympics.
So there you have it there is a Gay games an given LBGTQ+ there could be a trans element too. Everyone gets to compete and play then
ZedLeg said:
It’s weird that no one ever talks about the trans men who want to wrestle or box against other men. You’d think all these people would have something to say about people they must see as women putting themselves in danger.
That's kind of my point - do these people exist outside of your head? ZedLeg said:
bodhi said:
ZedLeg said:
The number of trans people willing or able to compete at high level sport is a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There wouldn’t be enough people to fill an event like the olympics.
Especially if you add in the number of people who were born as women who want to transition and compete against the men. That seems to be a vanishingly small number. I wonder why that is?
But lets say a trans male wanted to compete I think sure they could try but they are not going to get to the top flight of a sport....because men and women are different.
There’s a boxer called Patricio Manuel who was a good amateur boxer pre transition and won their first pro fight post.
Also Mack Begg, a college wrestler who’s trans. He wants to wrestle men but hasn’t been allowed. He dominated the girls divisions in high school and was booed when he won.
Also Mack Begg, a college wrestler who’s trans. He wants to wrestle men but hasn’t been allowed. He dominated the girls divisions in high school and was booed when he won.
Northernboy said:
austinsmirk said:
At least he/she /they/it/ them or whatever will come with their own bat and two balls unlike the ladies.
But yr right. Funnily though wasn’t there a male tennis player in the 70’s who bet he was better than martina Navratilova
Game was set up and she destroyed him.
That's quite some reimagining of history there.But yr right. Funnily though wasn’t there a male tennis player in the 70’s who bet he was better than martina Navratilova
Game was set up and she destroyed him.
Here's what actually happened;
"A pay-per-view telecast,[37][40] the match was played on Friday night, September 25, under hybrid rules to make it more competitive; Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half of the doubles alleys.[37][40] Each player received a $650,000 guarantee, with a further $500,000 for the winner.[40][41] Connors won 7–5, 6–2,[42] as Navratilova made eight double faults and 36 unforced errors. Connors, too, was nervous and there was a rumor that he had placed a bet on himself to win at 4:1.[43] According to Connors' book The Outsider, he placed a million-dollar bet that he would lose no more than eight games.[44]"
Edited to add, this followed an earlier game;
"Riggs had been one of the world's top tennis players in the 1940s; he was ranked year-end World No. 1 three times and had won six major titles during his career. After he retired from professional tennis in 1951, Riggs remained a master promoter of himself and of tennis. In 1973, he opined that the female game was inferior and that even at his current age of 55 he could still beat any of the top female players.
Riggs first challenged Billie Jean King, but when she declined, Margaret Court stepped in. At the time, Court was 30 years old and in the midst of earning her seventh year-end ranking as World No. 1 female player in the world. On the day of their match on May 13, 5,000 fans came to the Mother's Day match in Ramona, California. Televised by CBS Sports, Riggs descended the stadium steps and presented Court with Mother's Day flowers, which she accepted while curtsying. Riggs used his drop shots and lobs to keep Court off balance. His quick victory (6–2, 6–1) landed Riggs on the cover of both Sports Illustrated and Time."
Edited by Northernboy on Monday 21st June 12:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff