Discussion
ZedLeg said:
None of this was an issue until 5 or so years ago when the anti trans movement really kicked into a high gear.
Trans people shouldn’t have to engage in a “hearts and minds” campaign against what is essentially a hate movement.
As for the community in general, we’ll continue to stand our ground as best we can. It’s the people spouting hate and the people who are trying to both sides this that are pushing us down a scary road.
The simple fact is that there has been a huge increase in the number of visible trans people in the last 5-10 years. There have also been a number of high profile cases in sports involving intersex and trans individuals.Trans people shouldn’t have to engage in a “hearts and minds” campaign against what is essentially a hate movement.
As for the community in general, we’ll continue to stand our ground as best we can. It’s the people spouting hate and the people who are trying to both sides this that are pushing us down a scary road.
'shouldn't have to' is kind of neither-here-nor-there when it comes to social acceptance and the rights of minority people (or even majority of people when it was women's rights). That's just how it goes.
I'm part of the 'we' - the gay rights movement picked their battles. Going from civil unions to marriage for example, would have stomping feet and saying no we only want marriage have been productive?
8.4L 154 said:
gregs656 said:
8.4L 154 said:
MC Bodge said:
Why not just back down from the elite women's sport issue then?
It won't go away, the idea of the wedge is to keep forcing the issues progressively moving onto the next easy target. None of those campaigning against trans sport participants are silent on wider trans peoples lives. Sharron Davies has made comments on trans healthcare for instance. Wishing for it to be shut down by the courts.ETA
Plus how daft is it to suggest trans people as a whole abandon and stay silent on sport.
Edited by 8.4L 154 on Friday 24th June 16:27
I think taking a hard line all or nothing approach on these social issues like this a bad idea, the downsides of it are huge.
I'm worried about the road this is leading the LGBT community down to be honest.
Testosterone limits have only been reduced, trans people haven't complained widely about that, chances are any one transitioning is well below even the 2.5nmol which is the lowest and below cis female range I've seen.
The changes are from inclusion to exclusion and that should only happen with cast iron evidence, there is none, there isn't even a successful athlete in that 20 years and now in swimming there never will be nor is there any opportunities to collect the evidence. There is just misinformation. Take the above post about trans women red blood cells. It's often claimed RBC of trans women is that of men, it's not, HRT lowers RBC, lung size is only relevant if the blood can carry the oxygen, what did I just say about RBC? there simply isn't the blood to carry the oxygen it's just oversized lungs that need to be carried.
Same with strength, muscles can't be maintained the same without testosterone, that is not controversial even the most anti trans "research" doesn't dispute that.
Waiting 20 years won't achieve anything when today is the clock being turned back 20 years or 50 years in other areas, Today's SCOTUS announcement is not in isolation, it's the same people pressing back against trans sport are the ones overturning abortion and have already set sights on obergefell, of course the rest of LGB people are at risk, that's the idea, trans people have been saying that since before Trump was elected.
Randy Winkman said:
Some of us think that inclusion should only ever have happened with cast iron evidence which is why we are where we are now.
We are where we are and there has been 20 years for that needed evidence to come to light, it hasn't. It's also an interesting take on human rights to say excluded unless you can prove your worthy of them whilst denying access to any means of obtaining the necessary evidence
WorldBoss said:
andyA700 said:
Transmen have given birth. No male in history has ever given birth, therefore transmen are female. Transwomen have made women pregnant. No female in history has ever impregnated another female, therefore transwomen are male.
What are you using to quantify male and female?ZedLeg said:
otolith said:
ZedLeg said:
they’re just trying to protect their right to do things they were already doing
Who was competing in the Olympics before 2021?TonyToniTone said:
WorldBoss said:
Hormone replacement therapy has massive effects on the strength and performance of a trans athlete, for those on either end of the spectrum, and while it doesn't change certain things, it absolutely changes enough to make any attempt to compare Trans women directly to men running on testosterone completely disingenuous if you have any interest in actual facts, and not your feelings that all trans women are in fact actually all secretly blokes.
so the extra lung capacity, blood cells, muscle density, bone density, height, strength etc from being a male give no advantage when competing in women's sports?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.
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
Nice one. The shark is also able to indulge in a bit of fast food during the race.ZedLeg said:
Just my opinion but it’s not trans people who have been stamping their feet and shouting, they’re just trying to protect their right to do things they were already doing.
It’s the people that have suddenly decided that trans people are a threat to society that are causing a ruckus.
I suggest that you take a look at this then. One side has been consistently violent and vocal and it isn't the feminists or gender critical people.It’s the people that have suddenly decided that trans people are a threat to society that are causing a ruckus.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOM9J_ZIrYtiM...
otolith said:
ZedLeg said:
otolith said:
ZedLeg said:
they’re just trying to protect their right to do things they were already doing
Who was competing in the Olympics before 2021?Also, folk had been b
hing about trans women in sport for a while before Laurel Hubbard. Generally using the same two or three images of trans women on podiums or big women playing rugby (hilariously one of the most well used is of a trans man before they transitioned).8.4L 154 said:
Randy Winkman said:
Some of us think that inclusion should only ever have happened with cast iron evidence which is why we are where we are now.
We are where we are and there has been 20 years for that needed evidence to come to light, it hasn't. It's also an interesting take on human rights to say excluded unless you can prove your worthy of them whilst denying access to any means of obtaining the necessary evidence
ZedLeg said:
otolith said:
ZedLeg said:
No one, but the rule that allowed people to participate had been in place since 2004 with no issues.
No issues until someone actually tried to use it - the point being not that they shouldn't have, but that something changed and the issue went from being theoretical to concrete. It wasn't that people with a problem with it suddenly started complaining for no external reason.ZedLeg said:
Also, folk had been bhing about trans women in sport for a while before Laurel Hubbard. Generally using the same two or three images of trans women on podiums or big women playing rugby (hilariously one of the most well used is of a trans man before they transitioned).
And your contention is that trans women's visible representation in sport (and in society in general) has not increased over the period during which you say the anti-trans movement has made this an issue?hing about trans women in sport for a while before Laurel Hubbard. Generally using the same two or three images of trans women on podiums or big women playing rugby (hilariously one of the most well used is of a trans man before they transitioned).andyA700 said:
ZedLeg said:
Just my opinion but it’s not trans people who have been stamping their feet and shouting, they’re just trying to protect their right to do things they were already doing.
It’s the people that have suddenly decided that trans people are a threat to society that are causing a ruckus.
I suggest that you take a look at this then. One side has been consistently violent and vocal and it isn't the feminists or gender critical people.It’s the people that have suddenly decided that trans people are a threat to society that are causing a ruckus.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOM9J_ZIrYtiM...
otolith said:
ZedLeg said:
otolith said:
ZedLeg said:
No one, but the rule that allowed people to participate had been in place since 2004 with no issues.
No issues until someone actually tried to use it - the point being not that they shouldn't have, but that something changed and the issue went from being theoretical to concrete. It wasn't that people with a problem with it suddenly started complaining for no external reason.ZedLeg said:
Also, folk had been bhing about trans women in sport for a while before Laurel Hubbard. Generally using the same two or three images of trans women on podiums or big women playing rugby (hilariously one of the most well used is of a trans man before they transitioned).
And your contention is that trans women's visible representation in sport (and in society in general) has not increased over the period during which you say the anti-trans movement has made this an issue?hing about trans women in sport for a while before Laurel Hubbard. Generally using the same two or three images of trans women on podiums or big women playing rugby (hilariously one of the most well used is of a trans man before they transitioned).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.
It's kind of ironic how binary you interpret all of this 
You can support this rule, support trans rights disagree with a lot of the ant-trans rhetoric (which are mostly recycled arguments from anti-gay rhetoric anyway).
The most famous trans gender person in the world supports this rule. Caitlyn Jenner also has more experience of elite level competition than you or I. Is she transphobic? Why should I listen to you, and not her?
gregs656 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.
It's kind of ironic how binary you interpret all of this You can support this rule, support trans rights disagree with a lot of the ant-trans rhetoric (which are mostly recycled arguments from anti-gay rhetoric anyway).
The most famous trans gender person in the world supports this rule. Caitlyn Jenner also has more experience of elite level competition than you or I. Is she transphobic? Why should I listen to you, and not her?
I wouldn’t listen to Caitlyn Jenner but you do you.
[/quote]
I don’t think you see female to male sports people for the simple fact it gives them no advantage. That’s likely to be the harsh reality.
[/quote]
Not only will it give them no advantage - people born female would be significantly worse in male sports and would be at a huge, huge disadvantage.
They simply won't be fast enough/strong enough to compete - so it will happen at entry level but it won't become an issue.
Unlike men entering women's sport, where a competent male can enter the sport in their 40s and become one of the best in the world.
Like I've mentioned earlier - in Boxing, the best woman heavyweight in the world is Lani Daniels. A 33 year old woman whose record is 6 wins (o stoppages), 2 losses, 2 draws. She weights about 12 stone.
Any nightclub doorman would absolutely flatten her.
It would be dangerous to her life if a male heavyweight boxer transitioned and fought her - even at an advanced age.
The bizarre thing is NOBODY on here will openly admit to thinking a heavyweight born male should be allowed to transition and fight her. 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.
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...
Like this person here......https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/154021238...
He'll say 'I'm putting words into his mouth' but he's desperate for trans inclusion in sports.
However, ask a direct question:
Should a male professional heavyweight boxer who had a fairly standard career, routinely knocking out men over 18 stone, be able to transition and fight against women. The best heavyweight in the world is Lani Daniels, 5 foot 6, 6 wins 2 draws 2 losses with no knockouts.
Should they fight or should the male be excluded?
This guy, deep down, knows it would be borderline insane to let this fight happen - but his agenda won't let him admit it. So he'll dodge the question by saying it's a trick question, or we should let the experts decide.
If the experts decide no - he'll post 'studies' as to why they are wrong, and moan about transphobia etc.
But he'll NEVER answer the question.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff