2SLGBTQQIA+

[RobbieTheTruth]

ZedLeg said:

andyA700 said:

ZedLeg said:

Interesting thread about how exclusion due to lack of research isn't the right tack to take on this

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/154021238...

Try posting something from a credible source, such as Ross Tucker or Emma Hilton. That guy is getting absolutely blasted in the replies - maybe everyone is transphobic?
Anyway, one of the replies linked to this, which shows the advantage that schoolboys have over elite female athletes.

https://boysvswomen.com/#/world-record

When you say more credible, do you mean a source you agree with?

His argument is that from a legal precedent the ban as implemented isn’t the right way to go. I don’t see anyone disputing that in the replies.

Instead of the studies, why can't you just apply a small modicum of common sense for once.

Many 14yr old boys are faster than the fastest adult female athlete ever.

Many 14yr old boys can throw a javelin further than the greatest adult female javelin thrower of all time.

The list goes on.

Imagine when one of those 14yr old lads gets to 21 - his speed/throws will be so far beyond any female ever.

Then imagine him transitioning at 23.

It's coming.

All it's going to take is 10 or so competent runners transitioning now and there will no females winning sprint medals.

It hasn't happened yet, but if people like you are allowed to influence decisions by incessant moaning on social media and cancelling people who disgree, it's coming.

[gregs656]

ZedLeg said:

You don’t have to listen to anybody, I’m just countering the accepted view here.

I wouldn’t listen to Caitlyn Jenner but you do you.

I wasn't being literal. I will rephrase - Why would anyone think any more about this than: ex-Olympian, most famous trans gender woman in the world thinks this is a smart move - so I will too?

[ZedLeg]

gregs656 said:

ZedLeg said:

You don’t have to listen to anybody, I’m just countering the accepted view here.

I wouldn’t listen to Caitlyn Jenner but you do you.

I wasn't being literal. I will rephrase - Why would anyone think any more about this than: ex-Olympian, most famous trans gender woman in the world thinks this is a smart move - so I will too?

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

[gregs656]

ZedLeg said:

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

I would be cautious using the logic that the most popular idea is the right one, certainly in this case.

[RobbieTheTruth]

ZedLeg said:

gregs656 said:

ZedLeg said:

You don’t have to listen to anybody, I’m just countering the accepted view here.

I wouldn’t listen to Caitlyn Jenner but you do you.

I wasn't being literal. I will rephrase - Why would anyone think any more about this than: ex-Olympian, most famous trans gender woman in the world thinks this is a smart move - so I will too?

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

But you're not brave enough to actually say you want people born male in female sport.

You're just quick to point out people who don't are transphobic.

[otolith]

ZedLeg said:

So again, it’s not the hate groups stirring up trouble that’s the problem. It’s the people just trying to live their lives.

"So what you're actually saying is that I'm a lobster?"

No. This has become an issue - and those people who are against it have become more vocal - in part because it has gained traction in the public consciousness as these increasingly heated debates have taken place in the public sphere and in part because the situation that one side would like to celebrate and the other side would like to condemn has actually come to pass.

[anonymous-user]

Gecko1978 said:

Wasn't just FINA Rugby League and Rugby Union all made same decision....either they are transphobic or they look at evidence and realities in their sports an athlete 1ft taller than others has an advantage and that greater size came about due to birth sex not just natural selected within their chosen gender.

Fyi, The Fina (and I'm sticking to that because it's the one I've read, and seems to have been the one to spark this debate off again) doesn't actually preclude trans women eligible to compete on grounds of their birth sex but rather than the age of transition.

Their "evidence and realities" deems people who have completed their transition before 12 are able to compete, but offer no source material to what brought them to this conclusion, or any of their other findings.

Dissecting that a bit further, it suggests that any trans woman that might have had the slightest possibly of developing under higher amounts of testosterone than the "average woman" for even a day should be permanently excluded from participation because that advantage is forever retained... Yet no answer on how much of an advantage is retained despite HRT, and in the interests of absolute fairness, whether experiencing hormonal imbalances would permanently affect cis and intersex women's performance in the similar way.

andyA700 said:

Biological sex, which is 100% reliable and accurate 99.5% of the time.

You used the word "never" to quantify your statement "99.5%", or more accurately at most 98% (if we just count the global intersex population of the population) doesn't quantify "never", as there will be XY "males" within that 2% who have given birth.

andyA700 said:

Exactly, the small matter of biology which causes the very obvious differences between male and female.
If an anthropologist digs up the skeleton of a transwoman in 1000 years time, they will identify that skeleton as male, regardless of how that person identified in life.

Again with the blanket statements that only work if you ignore all the actual scientific evidence and rely only on your transphobic feelings - Gender affirming HRT can and does absolutely influence bone structure depending on a number of factors, namely when treatment began.

Then in the irony of ironies, it's the same people that make the indigent and crass comments about people's bones are the same people that shout the loudest about making the access to gender affirming treatment so difficult that trans people may miss the window of changes to bone structure... and then they go back to using bone thing as a rod to try and further invalidate trans people.

[RobbieTheTruth]

WorldBoss said:

Gecko1978 said:

Wasn't just FINA Rugby League and Rugby Union all made same decision....either they are transphobic or they look at evidence and realities in their sports an athlete 1ft taller than others has an advantage and that greater size came about due to birth sex not just natural selected within their chosen gender.

Fyi, The Fina (and I'm sticking to that because it's the one I've read, and seems to have been the one to spark this debate off again) doesn't actually preclude trans women eligible to compete on grounds of their birth sex but rather than the age of transition.

Their "evidence and realities" deems people who have completed their transition before 12 are able to compete, but offer no source material to what brought them to this conclusion, or any of their other findings.

Dissecting that a bit further, it suggests that any trans woman that might have had the slightest possibly of developing under higher amounts of testosterone than the "average woman" for even a day should be permanently excluded from participation because that advantage is forever retained... Yet no answer on how much of an advantage is retained despite HRT, and in the interests of absolute fairness, whether experiencing hormonal imbalances would permanently affect cis and intersex women's performance in the similar way.

andyA700 said:

Biological sex, which is 100% reliable and accurate 99.5% of the time.

You used the word "never" to quantify your statement "99.5%", or more accurately at most 98% (if we just count the global intersex population of the population) doesn't quantify "never", as there will be XY "males" within that 2% who have given birth.

andyA700 said:

Exactly, the small matter of biology which causes the very obvious differences between male and female.
If an anthropologist digs up the skeleton of a transwoman in 1000 years time, they will identify that skeleton as male, regardless of how that person identified in life.

Again with the blanket statements that only work if you ignore all the actual scientific evidence and rely only on your transphobic feelings - Gender affirming HRT can and does absolutely influence bone structure depending on a number of factors, namely when treatment began.

Then in the irony of ironies, it's the same people that make the indigent and crass comments about people's bones are the same people that shout the loudest about making the access to gender affirming treatment so difficult that trans people may miss the window of changes to bone structure... and then they go back to using bone thing as a rod to try and further invalidate trans people.

Do you think people born male should be allowed to compete in women's sport?

Expecting a long answer involving experts, studies, hormone levels, inclusion etc rather than a yes/no.

Basically you'll answer "I don't know" then go back to telling everyone who says 'no' that they are wrong. Am i right?

[ZedLeg]

gregs656 said:

ZedLeg said:

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

I would be cautious using the logic that the most popular idea is the right one, certainly in this case.

Listen to trans people, no not those ones

[ZedLeg]

otolith said:

ZedLeg said:

So again, it’s not the hate groups stirring up trouble that’s the problem. It’s the people just trying to live their lives.

"So what you're actually saying is that I'm a lobster?"

No. This has become an issue - and those people who are against it have become more vocal - in part because it has gained traction in the public consciousness as these increasingly heated debates have taken place in the public sphere and in part because the situation that one side would like to celebrate and the other side would like to condemn has actually come to pass.

It still comes down to trans people losing access to things they had access to based on nothing but how public opinion is going. Until there has been study that definitively proves that trans women have an unfair advantage, that’s what it amounts to.

[rover 623gsi]

ZedLeg said:

otolith said:

ZedLeg said:

So again, it’s not the hate groups stirring up trouble that’s the problem. It’s the people just trying to live their lives.

"So what you're actually saying is that I'm a lobster?"

No. This has become an issue - and those people who are against it have become more vocal - in part because it has gained traction in the public consciousness as these increasingly heated debates have taken place in the public sphere and in part because the situation that one side would like to celebrate and the other side would like to condemn has actually come to pass.

It still comes down to trans people losing access to things they had access to based on nothing but how public opinion is going. Until there has been study that definitively proves that trans women have an unfair advantage, that’s what it amounts to.

We know for a fact that males have an advantage over females in sporting performance. No one can dispute this. It is proven and verifiable. The advantage is well documented over virtually every sport and measured over long periods of time. This is the reason why sports are segregated by sex (biology), not gender (feelings).

Trans women are male, therefore the logical starting point is that a trans woman will have a sporting advantage compared to a woman. Rather than sporting bodies having to prove than trans women have an advantage, it should be up to those interested to prove that trans women do not have an advantage.

[anonymous-user]

RobbieTheTruth said:

Do you think people born male should be allowed to compete in women's sport?

Expecting a long answer involving experts, studies, hormone levels, inclusion etc rather than a yes/no.

Basically you'll answer "I don't know" then go back to telling everyone who says 'no' that they are wrong. Am i right?

LOL, you throw out an over simplified question containing noticebly loaded language and then are preemptively getting upset with the inevitable "it's complicated" answer? Yet another zero sum game.

I'm sure you'll not like this answer but:

"Yes, trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sport as there is no conclusive publicly available data that shows they have an unfair physical advantage after transitioning".

[gregs656]

ZedLeg said:

gregs656 said:

ZedLeg said:

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

I would be cautious using the logic that the most popular idea is the right one, certainly in this case.

Listen to trans people, no not those ones

That's not what I am said, but you know that.

[Randy Winkman]

WorldBoss said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Do you think people born male should be allowed to compete in women's sport?

Expecting a long answer involving experts, studies, hormone levels, inclusion etc rather than a yes/no.

Basically you'll answer "I don't know" then go back to telling everyone who says 'no' that they are wrong. Am i right?

LOL, you throw out an over simplified question containing noticebly loaded language and then are preemptively getting upset with the inevitable "it's complicated" answer? Yet another zero sum game.

I'm sure you'll not like this answer but:

"Yes, trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sport as there is no conclusive publicly available data that shows they have an unfair physical advantage after transitioning".

But you're never going to change the fact that people like me will say that since those people were born male they cant be allowed in female sports until it's proved that they don't have an advantage. I'm not saying that I'm right and you are wrong, I'm just saying that's what the sticking point is.

[8.4L 154]

ZedLeg said:

gregs656 said:

ZedLeg said:

You don’t have to listen to anybody, I’m just countering the accepted view here.

I wouldn’t listen to Caitlyn Jenner but you do you.

I wasn't being literal. I will rephrase - Why would anyone think any more about this than: ex-Olympian, most famous trans gender woman in the world thinks this is a smart move - so I will too?

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

IIRC she also uses the women's T in golf so a pretty hypocritical opinion at that. But I'd expect nothing less from her.

[8.4L 154]

gregs656 said:

ZedLeg said:

Because if you look into how the trans community feel about this decision for any more than five minutes you would see that Kaitlyn Jenner is in a tiny minority of people who support it. She also changes her mind like the weather, remember when she was pro trump and didn’t like gay marriage?

I would be cautious using the logic that the most popular idea is the right one, certainly in this case.

Well the most popular opinion is clearly excluding trans women so at least we agree the most popular is not the correct one.

[anonymous-user]

rover 623gsi said:

We know for a fact that males have an advantage over females in sporting performance. No one can dispute this. It is proven and verifiable. The advantage is well documented over virtually every sport and measured over long periods of time. This is the reason why sports are segregated by sex (biology), not gender (feelings).

Trans women are male, therefore the logical starting point is that a trans woman will have a sporting advantage compared to a woman. Rather than sporting bodies having to prove than trans women have an advantage, it should be up to those interested to prove that trans women do not have an advantage.

And we are back to comparing Apples to oranges and peaches, and then applying that logic to how bananas are ultimately going to stack up in the big race against tomatoes.

I know we've done this a thousand times before, but I'll keep trying to explain in the naive hope that you are simply misinformed rather than simply ignorant.

Sexual dimorphism in humans is not dictated solely by chromosomes. Simply by the virtue of a foetus having XY chromosomes, being born with a willy or whatever hook you want to hang your "born as male" hat on does not mean that they will necessarily go on to develop the sexually dimorphic traits that creates that advantage in performance between the "sexes" you mention.

Its hormones and how the body reacts to them that creates and maintains this dimorphism. In the case of hormonally transitioning trans people, their body's dimorphism in some key traits connected to their sports performance like muscle mass and density absolutely and irrefutably change to the point where trying to lump them together with their birth sex's expected performance despite being years on cross sex hormones and calling it a day is laughable; See Mack Beggs, trans man who absolutely dominated US high school girl's wrestling because state rules dictated that he should compete as his birth sex.

At least Fina understand and account for this, if not somewhat questionably by the allowing of competitors that have transitioned by 12 to compete.
This inherit difference you elude to quite simply doesn't exist. Fina recognise that hence they are not banning males from competing, but rather those who haven't presumably transitioned before puberty creating the onus that it is going through puberty alone causes is what causes a performance difference, which I'm sure sounds plausible, and yet wasn't conclusively backed up prior to their decision, and still isn't now as they haven't provided any of their actual evidence and findings.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th June 22:22

[8.4L 154]

RobbieTheTruth said:

The best you'll get is "let the experts decide" Obviously, the same people are triggered now the experts have decided people born male can't compete in female swimming races.

Are those the experts you all said were untrustworthy and didn't know jack st last time.

Personally I think it's more didisingenuous to have called the experts misogynistic and not caring about women's sport last time and now argue the experts are right now with zero evidence provided to back it up, than the position of let the experts decide based on evidence and now questioning the complete lack of said evidence and a policy that goes against human rights law, the existing situation and historical data we can see about participation and performance.

[8.4L 154]

WorldBoss said:

Fyi, The Fina (and I'm sticking to that because it's the one I've read, and seems to have been the one to spark this debate off again) doesn't actually preclude trans women eligible to compete on grounds of their birth sex but rather than the age of transition.

Their "evidence and realities" deems people who have completed their transition before 12 are able to compete, but offer no source material to what brought them to this conclusion, or any of their other findings.

Dissecting that a bit further, it suggests that any trans woman that might have had the slightest possibly of developing under higher amounts of testosterone than the "average woman" for even a day should be permanently excluded from participation because that advantage is forever retained... Yet no answer on how much of an advantage is retained despite HRT, and in the interests of absolute fairness,[b] whether experiencing hormonal imbalances would permanently affect cis and intersex women's performance in the similar way.
[/b]

Oh, FINA carved out a nice exception to testosterone exposure for cis athletes to avoid going against WADA policy of allowing cis testosterone cheats back into sport after a clean period. Kind of like they tried real hard to make sure it was only trans athletes who get a total unavoidable ban.

It's a bit like the North Carolina bathroom ban which had a long list of permitted AMAB people which pretty much included anyone but a trans women entering the ladies loo.

[gregs656]

8.4L 154 said:

Well the most popular opinion is clearly excluding trans women so at least we agree the most popular is not the correct one.

At least you understood my point, even if your conclusion is wrong.