First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics
Discussion
PomBstard said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
It is. Piers Morgan wrote an article on the whole thing, saying how ludicrous it was etc, but saying he doesn't blame Hubbard.
I do. Not solely, but Hubbard is an absolute disgrace doing this to young women who have trained all of their lives to get to the Olympics.
Agreed. Worse than Hubbard is Petrillo - Italian Paralympian who won national titles as a man, and then in 2020 started running as a woman. This year, at the age of 47, won gold medals in the Italian Paralympic Trials T12 for 100m, 200m, and 400m. Yep, the fastest Italian T12 woman for 100m is 47 years old. Sound right to you?I do. Not solely, but Hubbard is an absolute disgrace doing this to young women who have trained all of their lives to get to the Olympics.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I've discussed this with my daughter, who is a classified para-athlete for swimming and track/field and a serious athlete. I asked her how she would feel about swimming or running against boys her age who wanted to be girls. She told me that wouldn't be fair as they're quicker and stronger. I also asked how she would feel if, having got to her dream point of selection to the national Paraswim squad, a man who wanted to be a girl took her place because they were quicker. I was told not to be so stupid as that obviously isn't going to happen.
So I said that this is exactly what has happened in Italy, and now in NZ.
There were cries of, "That's not fair!" and on we went. If anyone doubts the impact this can and will have on women's opportunity in sport, they need to chat with some of those that are serious about making certain grades or squads. Ask them how they'd feel about a man taking their place because they wanted to be a woman.
Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
RobbieTheTruth said:
Exactly. Like I said, what are you supposed to tell your daughter, if she's been training all her life to be the best weightlifter in the country, and suddenly a 40 year old person born male starts competing and is lifting more than her.
Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
Again you need to read what im actually writing rather than what you think im writing.Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
amusingduck said:
MC Bodge said:
It is entirely possible to think that trans-gender women should not be in the same sporting category as biological women whilst being supportive and accepting of those same trans-gender women.
Well, does it not slightly undermine the concept of 'trans women ARE women'?Fundamentally, women don't have their own category for sport because they're women. It's a broad brush for, on a population level, being smaller, weaker, and slower, and it's relatively easy to manage and administer the category.
That's been fine for decades, but as society now accepts that trans women are women, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether it's still appropriate to use "women" as that broad brush classification.
What's needed is something that allows for classification of sports which let's you have separation based on the factors you're actually trying to separate for, the things that make one group generally smaller, weaker, and slower than the other.
Simple testosterone levels don't seem to do it on their own, as from what I understand, testosterone level being low at the time of testing doesn't remove the developmental advantage to physique of having had higher levels for years or decades prior, during which a lot of growing and training has happened.
It does seem like going through male puberty is a key metric here, so perhaps that's what needs to be the major factor in how you're grouped for professional sport?
So it's no longer men's and women's sport, it's those who went through male puberty, and those who did not.
Much harder to administer and police, unfortunately, but I think it needs to be something like that in order to continue to have viable different categories without infringinging on trans women being grouped with women.
I certainly don't know what the answer is, I don't have the specific knowledge of the subject matter, but how things are currently seems to be leading to a bit of a crunch point.
It's extremely frustrating, as I'm firmly behind trans rights, and I really do loathe being in a position that feels like it's giving up the slightest ground to the "trans women aren't women" lot.
So the best I can suggest is find a way to sidestep it entirely, and have classification be on a different metric to men vs women.
chrispmartha said:
Again you need to read what ive written not what you think ive written
“ Is 'some women are taller than other women' seriously your argument on allowing people born male to compete in women's sport?”
No and i said as much, i said its a daft metric for BOTH sides of the argument.
If the sports scientists and governing bodies decide that Trans people don’t qualify for their cosen category I would be fine with that, happy?
I think you're missing the point, I think it was just an example of an obvious way that humans are sexually dimorphic which cannot be negated with subsequent hormone therapy. It's a dimorphism which is a continuous variable with overlapping bell curves - like lots of other differences. “ Is 'some women are taller than other women' seriously your argument on allowing people born male to compete in women's sport?”
No and i said as much, i said its a daft metric for BOTH sides of the argument.
If the sports scientists and governing bodies decide that Trans people don’t qualify for their cosen category I would be fine with that, happy?
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
No, they have weight classes, and body mass is generally a bigger factor on strength and combat.
Is 'some women are taller than other women' seriously your argument on allowing people born male to compete in women's sport?
Of course genetics comes in to it!
Like I said earlier:
Hubbard wouldn't make the male NZ Olympic weightlifting squad because they are too old and nowhere near good enough.
Hubbard will likely medal at the Olympics in the female category, because they were born male (despite being 20 years older than the average competitor).
That's cool isn't it.
Again you need to read what ive written not what you think ive written Is 'some women are taller than other women' seriously your argument on allowing people born male to compete in women's sport?
Of course genetics comes in to it!
Like I said earlier:
Hubbard wouldn't make the male NZ Olympic weightlifting squad because they are too old and nowhere near good enough.
Hubbard will likely medal at the Olympics in the female category, because they were born male (despite being 20 years older than the average competitor).
That's cool isn't it.
“ Is 'some women are taller than other women' seriously your argument on allowing people born male to compete in women's sport?”
No and i said as much, i said its a daft metric for BOTH sides of the argument.
If the sports scientists and governing bodies decide that Trans people don’t qualify for their chosen category I would be fine with that, happy?
US Boxing has different bodies in each state. You'd support the state of Texas sanctioning a fight between a recently transitioned heavyweight boxer fighting the womens number 2 in the world, 5 foot 5, 51 year old Laura Ramsay?
Of course you wouldn't, but it doesn't suit your agenda, so you'll say something like 'but there isn't a male heavyweight who wants to fight her'.
Are you seriously saying you'd support that fight if the Texas State Boxing Commission sanctioned it?
InitialDave said:
I think the issue is more that it shows the hole in having the division be men's and women's categories.
Fundamentally, women don't have their own category for sport because they're women. It's a broad brush for, on a population level, being smaller, weaker, and slower, and it's relatively easy to manage and administer the category.
That's been fine for decades, but as society now accepts that trans women are women, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether it's still appropriate to use "women" as that broad brush classification.
What's needed is something that allows for classification of sports which let's you have separation based on the factors you're actually trying to separate for, the things that make one group generally smaller, weaker, and slower than the other.
Simple testosterone levels don't seem to do it on their own, as from what I understand, testosterone level being low at the time of testing doesn't remove the developmental advantage to physique of having had higher levels for years or decades prior, during which a lot of growing and training has happened.
It does seem like going through male puberty is a key metric here, so perhaps that's what needs to be the major factor in how you're grouped for professional sport?
So it's no longer men's and women's sport, it's those who went through male puberty, and those who did not.
Much harder to administer and police, unfortunately, but I think it needs to be something like that in order to continue to have viable different categories without infringinging on trans women being grouped with women.
I certainly don't know what the answer is, I don't have the specific knowledge of the subject matter, but how things are currently seems to be leading to a bit of a crunch point.
It's extremely frustrating, as I'm firmly behind trans rights, and I really do loathe being in a position that feels like it's giving up the slightest ground to the "trans women aren't women" lot.
So the best I can suggest is find a way to sidestep it entirely, and have classification be on a different metric to men vs women.
Does society believe intact males who id as women are actually women ? Fundamentally, women don't have their own category for sport because they're women. It's a broad brush for, on a population level, being smaller, weaker, and slower, and it's relatively easy to manage and administer the category.
That's been fine for decades, but as society now accepts that trans women are women, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether it's still appropriate to use "women" as that broad brush classification.
What's needed is something that allows for classification of sports which let's you have separation based on the factors you're actually trying to separate for, the things that make one group generally smaller, weaker, and slower than the other.
Simple testosterone levels don't seem to do it on their own, as from what I understand, testosterone level being low at the time of testing doesn't remove the developmental advantage to physique of having had higher levels for years or decades prior, during which a lot of growing and training has happened.
It does seem like going through male puberty is a key metric here, so perhaps that's what needs to be the major factor in how you're grouped for professional sport?
So it's no longer men's and women's sport, it's those who went through male puberty, and those who did not.
Much harder to administer and police, unfortunately, but I think it needs to be something like that in order to continue to have viable different categories without infringinging on trans women being grouped with women.
I certainly don't know what the answer is, I don't have the specific knowledge of the subject matter, but how things are currently seems to be leading to a bit of a crunch point.
It's extremely frustrating, as I'm firmly behind trans rights, and I really do loathe being in a position that feels like it's giving up the slightest ground to the "trans women aren't women" lot.
So the best I can suggest is find a way to sidestep it entirely, and have classification be on a different metric to men vs women.
Do you think believing transwomen are transwomen is transphobic?
To have male athletes who have not went through puberty would entail young boys on damaging puberty blockers from as young as 8 ?
Also there is studies to show precocious puberty has a effect on boys development also.
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Exactly. Like I said, what are you supposed to tell your daughter, if she's been training all her life to be the best weightlifter in the country, and suddenly a 40 year old person born male starts competing and is lifting more than her.
Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
Again you need to read what im actually writing rather than what you think im writing.Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
InitialDave said:
I think the issue is more that it shows the hole in having the division be men's and women's categories.
Fundamentally, women don't have their own category for sport because they're women. It's a broad brush for, on a population level, being smaller, weaker, and slower, and it's relatively easy to manage and administer the category.
That's been fine for decades, but as society now accepts that trans women are women, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether it's still appropriate to use "women" as that broad brush classification.
Point 1 and 2 - correct. "Women" and "Female" have always been synonymous when it comes to sports categories.Fundamentally, women don't have their own category for sport because they're women. It's a broad brush for, on a population level, being smaller, weaker, and slower, and it's relatively easy to manage and administer the category.
That's been fine for decades, but as society now accepts that trans women are women, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether it's still appropriate to use "women" as that broad brush classification.
Point 3 - contested, sounds like your opinion rather than provable reality. This thread alone shows that "society" holds a wide spread of views.
RobbieTheTruth said:
Not really no - because your own viewpoint is clearly trans women should compete among women, but you hide behind 'governing bodies' when forced to justify it.
US Boxing has different bodies in each state. You'd support the state of Texas sanctioning a fight between a recently transitioned heavyweight boxer fighting the womens number 2 in the world, 5 foot 5, 51 year old Laura Ramsay?
Of course you wouldn't, but it doesn't suit your agenda, so you'll say something like 'but there isn't a male heavyweight who wants to fight her'.
Are you seriously saying you'd support that fight if the Texas State Boxing Commission sanctioned it?
Don’t try and tell me how I think or what my viewpoint is, ive laid it out for you quite clearly, I have not got the expertise or knowledge to make the informed decision i as it stands am happy to let those who have make rhe decisions. That’s a perfectly valid view point you just don’t like it.US Boxing has different bodies in each state. You'd support the state of Texas sanctioning a fight between a recently transitioned heavyweight boxer fighting the womens number 2 in the world, 5 foot 5, 51 year old Laura Ramsay?
Of course you wouldn't, but it doesn't suit your agenda, so you'll say something like 'but there isn't a male heavyweight who wants to fight her'.
Are you seriously saying you'd support that fight if the Texas State Boxing Commission sanctioned it?
I haven’t got an agenda, if I have then it’s only that I don’t like to see an already marginalised section of society demonised ans more hate directed at them.
As for your hypothetical situation if it happened I may very well say I disagre with it and probably would disagree with it.
It seems you can’t conceive some people might have a different viewpoint or indeed might not be 100% sure on their viewpoint (which is where im at) you again seem to see everything as black and white
InitialDave said:
amusingduck said:
MC Bodge said:
It is entirely possible to think that trans-gender women should not be in the same sporting category as biological women whilst being supportive and accepting of those same trans-gender women.
Well, does it not slightly undermine the concept of 'trans women ARE women'?Fundamentally, women don't have their own category for sport because they're women. It's a broad brush for, on a population level, being smaller, weaker, and slower, and it's relatively easy to manage and administer the category.
That's been fine for decades, but as society now accepts that trans women are women, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether it's still appropriate to use "women" as that broad brush classification.
What's needed is something that allows for classification of sports which let's you have separation based on the factors you're actually trying to separate for, the things that make one group generally smaller, weaker, and slower than the other.
Simple testosterone levels don't seem to do it on their own, as from what I understand, testosterone level being low at the time of testing doesn't remove the developmental advantage to physique of having had higher levels for years or decades prior, during which a lot of growing and training has happened.
It does seem like going through male puberty is a key metric here, so perhaps that's what needs to be the major factor in how you're grouped for professional sport?
So it's no longer men's and women's sport, it's those who went through male puberty, and those who did not.
Much harder to administer and police, unfortunately, but I think it needs to be something like that in order to continue to have viable different categories without infringinging on trans women being grouped with women.
I certainly don't know what the answer is, I don't have the specific knowledge of the subject matter, but how things are currently seems to be leading to a bit of a crunch point.
It's extremely frustrating, as I'm firmly behind trans rights, and I really do loathe being in a position that feels like it's giving up the slightest ground to the "trans women aren't women" lot.
So the best I can suggest is find a way to sidestep it entirely, and have classification be on a different metric to men vs women.
"I'm firmly behind trans rights, and I really do loathe being in a position that feels like it's giving up the slightest ground to the "trans women aren't women" lot."
I think that is why any people who want people born male competing against women take that stance, and unfortunately the women who compete are the victims of this.
I'd like to think that the vast majority of people are in support of trans rights, would be respectful, avoid mis-gendering etc - whilst also understanding there are still biological differences.
It's not hard to grasp.
Going through male puberty is only one element. Even if they don't, they still have a male skeleton and bone density etc. Also, you'd be putting a time limit on gender reassignment which would become noninclusive too - basically, transition before 11 and you can compete in sport.
People pro-trans in professional sport only really have the 'it hasn't happened yet' answer as to what happens to women when their sport is dominated by trans athletes.
The differences are so vast, all it takes in one competent male short/middle distance runner to transition and they could likely take the female Olympic Gold in 100m, 200m, 400m, 110m hurdles, 400m hurdles and potentially long jump. They'd also give the team a huge advantage in the relay races.
If Bruce Jenner had done this in his prime, it's feasible to suggest he could have won medals in 400, 800m, 1500m, pole vault, shot put, javelin and discus - which is why she doesn't believe trans athletes should compete against women.
Iwantafusca said:
Does society believe intact males who id as women are actually women ?
The bits of it I wish to interact with largely seem to, yes.Iwantafusca said:
Do you think believing transwomen are transwomen is transphobic?
I think it's a deliberately specific bit of language use that is not itself transphobic, but likely to accompany such attitudes.The other stuff, I don't know, as I said, I don't know what the answer is.
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Exactly. Like I said, what are you supposed to tell your daughter, if she's been training all her life to be the best weightlifter in the country, and suddenly a 40 year old person born male starts competing and is lifting more than her.
Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
Again you need to read what im actually writing rather than what you think im writing.Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
What if you had a daughter and she was fine with it, would you tell her she is wrong?
And if we’re talking hypotheticals what if you had a sn who wanted to transition and then compete in the women’s catagory? What would you do then?
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Not really no - because your own viewpoint is clearly trans women should compete among women, but you hide behind 'governing bodies' when forced to justify it.
US Boxing has different bodies in each state. You'd support the state of Texas sanctioning a fight between a recently transitioned heavyweight boxer fighting the womens number 2 in the world, 5 foot 5, 51 year old Laura Ramsay?
Of course you wouldn't, but it doesn't suit your agenda, so you'll say something like 'but there isn't a male heavyweight who wants to fight her'.
Are you seriously saying you'd support that fight if the Texas State Boxing Commission sanctioned it?
Don’t try and tell me how I think or what my viewpoint is, ive laid it out for you quite clearly, I have not got the expertise or knowledge to make the informed decision i as it stands am happy to let those who have make rhe decisions. That’s a perfectly valid view point you just don’t like it.US Boxing has different bodies in each state. You'd support the state of Texas sanctioning a fight between a recently transitioned heavyweight boxer fighting the womens number 2 in the world, 5 foot 5, 51 year old Laura Ramsay?
Of course you wouldn't, but it doesn't suit your agenda, so you'll say something like 'but there isn't a male heavyweight who wants to fight her'.
Are you seriously saying you'd support that fight if the Texas State Boxing Commission sanctioned it?
I haven’t got an agenda, if I have then it’s only that I don’t like to see an already marginalised section of society demonised ans more hate directed at them.
As for your hypothetical situation if it happened I may very well say I disagre with it and probably would disagree with it.
It seems you can’t conceive some people might have a different viewpoint or indeed might not be 100% sure on their viewpoint (which is where im at) you again seem to see everything as black and white
However when asked to back it up, you can't on sporting merit - and can only really cite transphobia. (and refuse to answer if you'd actually support ex-males fighting women because you know deep down it's insane)
Sound, let's let them compete then.
Your agenda isn't sport, it isn't womens rights in sport - it's pro-trans rights.Completely your perogitive of course, just makes your points utterly worthless for people trying to have a sensible debate in how to proceed with the issue.
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Exactly. Like I said, what are you supposed to tell your daughter, if she's been training all her life to be the best weightlifter in the country, and suddenly a 40 year old person born male starts competing and is lifting more than her.
Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
Again you need to read what im actually writing rather than what you think im writing.Do you tell her she must try harder?
Or do you tell her unfortunately the world's gone mad and she might as well focus on doing something else. Maybe a career in IT instead.
Of course, ask Chrispmartha a valid question like that and the answer will be 'I don't know, I haven't got a daughter' or some nonsense which avoids the issue of fairness.
What if you had a daughter and she was fine with it, would you tell her she is wrong?
And if we’re talking hypotheticals what if you had a sn who wanted to transition and then compete in the women’s catagory? What would you do then?
I'd hope any competing sportsman would understand how utterly unfair it would be on women and just wouldn't do it. If they asked my advice on the subject, I'd tell them so.
RobbieTheTruth said:
The last part of that question is very very easy.
I'd hope any competing sportsman would understand how utterly unfair it would be on women and just wouldn't do it. If they asked my advice on the subject, I'd tell them so.
Would you support your son in that situation?I'd hope any competing sportsman would understand how utterly unfair it would be on women and just wouldn't do it. If they asked my advice on the subject, I'd tell them so.
But anyway so fine, you'd tell them your opinion, then what?
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Ok, so you come into a discussion on a forum and say you think people born as male should compete against women.
This is why you are getting muddled, I have never specifically said that, you just think I have."I am happy to leave it to the governing bodies and sports scientists to decide what’s allowed"
Weightlifting Governing bodies allow Hubbard to compete - you're happy with this.
Rugby governing bodies don't let people born male compete with women because they are too strong - you're happy with this?
In weightlifting do a U-Turn and ban ex-males competing against women - you'd be happy with this?
MMA has different rules depending on the state - you ok with this?
Can you maybe tell us what you think without hiding behind governing bodies?
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
The last part of that question is very very easy.
I'd hope any competing sportsman would understand how utterly unfair it would be on women and just wouldn't do it. If they asked my advice on the subject, I'd tell them so.
Would you support your son in that situation?I'd hope any competing sportsman would understand how utterly unfair it would be on women and just wouldn't do it. If they asked my advice on the subject, I'd tell them so.
But anyway so fine, you'd tell them your opinion, then what?
As a child, I would discourage them to compete against girls in any semi-competitive sport competition, and would explain that he has unfair advantages. Any reasonably sane adult would grasp that, but I appreciate it would be difficult as a child .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff