Trans activists failing to persuade people on the sports issue

You're licking the boots of the guy with sexual-harassment-Riker for an avatar, and you've called all trans people "groomers".
You don't get to decide what's mature.
Fuck you.


(also, what Spaceturkey said)

Wrong one on both counts. And don’t really care what reformed heroine junkie getting in touch with his feelings and living a decolonization life has to say.

Reminder: The trust fund kid hates it when people resort to personal attacks.

Phelps fit the criteria in that he was a biological male competing in a sport for biological males

Phelps is a one in a billion specimen too, a massive outlier. People like him come along maybe once in a lifetime. That’s probably not going to be the case with this trans folk in sport thing (which is fine)

If more people had the unique physiology of Phelps then maybe there would be rule changes? Perhaps, I don’t know

I just don’t think your Phelps comparison is the slam dunk you think it is. There’s a lot more to this issue

Trans women having a decisive physical advantage over cis women is not an outlier effect; it's a norm. And as a norm it should be controlled for if we want fair play.

Sports don't care about fair play. It only cares about winners.

Sports can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

That should be a sport.

With due respect to Kurt Vonnegut.

On second thought sports is all about fare play.

From what I've seen, trans folks are fairly middle of the road competitors. It was pointed out elsewhere that while Lia Thomas did come in first in that recent competition, her time was very close to the previous years cis female winner, and nowhere near the record time for that event. The only time I've heard of a trans competitor dominating in a sport is that time in Texas(?) where the government forced a trans male wrestler to compete against cis females over her objections.

Yabut who's paying that fare?

Thanks, that's a very explicit example of why this is an issue for me. Once again, at the end of the day I'm a liberal because on the overwhelming majority of issues liberals fall on the side of science. But ultimately I think that science should inform us on these types of issues, especially those issues that science itself created. The question of transitioning is a science based question. Because without scientific advancement, transitioning couldn't have happened.

The dogma that it's inappropriate to investigate the science, or that the science is explicit, is not correct and potentially damaging. And that's exactly the dogma I see when I'm categorized as among various things a bigot, a libertarian, a potential useful idiot, and of course a child rapist because I don't agree with the far left dogma. You'll also see this kind of excoriation of anyone who challenges if trans rights supersede other people's rights.

As to the science, take Matt's link: https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20210715/do-trans-women-athletes-have-advantages

Matt selectively quoted it. There are other pertinent points, and it's worth looking at en toto. But two things this specialist also states based on her direct experience - transwomen who experienced male puberty are always going to have a strength advantage over ciswomen. And that on average they will have a 10-20% size and height advantage as well.

She takes a different philosophical point of view than me from that data. She states that the standard should be 'meaningful competition.' So in her eyes it's OK for transathletes to win more often because of their increased physical abilities, I believe it should be 'fair competition.' In a world where physics gives advantages across the board to stronger, bigger competitors in virtually all sports, that matters.

And it can also be a matter of safety. Force=mass x acceleration, but physical resistance to impact also is based on size and body composition. There are many sports where a substantive advantage in either let alone both of those categories is going to cause increased injury. There's already an example of a transwoman MMA fighter fracturing another fighter's skull - and in this case, not being forthcoming about her status as a transathlete prior to her first matches.

For transathletes that don't have pronounced advantages there, that's absolutely fine, of course they should be able to compete. So the question from a scientific standpoint is at what level does that require.

That's literally why I've been attacked in this thread - b/c I believe that line should be a little farther.

And, of course, virtually every major sporting oversight board agrees with me.

I'm sure you believe that to the marrow of your bones.
And I still say you're self-deceived.

The science isn't conclusive on the subject of how much testosterone it takes to be a man, only what arbitrary cutoffs certain sports agencies have placed.

I understand you wish to side with whatever sports agency supports your point of view. I don't think it helps athletes though.

There is no such thing as fair competition. Money in sports assures that.

It's telling that you would choose the trans issue as the hill to die on.

Science absolutely understands what the normal range for male testosterone is, and indeed how much testosterone should be injected for those suffering from low testosterone so they can go through puberty as a male. Or to transition from female or intersex to male.

If they didn't understand the level of hormones necessary to transition, this entire discussion would be moot - there would be no transpeople and therefore no transathletes.

Certainly, you don't believe in fairness in competition. You not only don't base your opinion on that, you explicitly reject it's possible. It's literally your next statement.

Each sport governs itself in that regard. Professional sports often have limitations on resources that can be spent in assembling a team. Collegiate sports don't include direct payments to athletes, though that may change.

Regardless, both style have oversite committees that include an emphasis on fair competition.

And all of them change their rules on a repeated basis to ensure that level of competition.

Yeah, I'll walk away from this hill just fine, thanks.

The concept that equal rights have to be applied equally is a very nice hill.

The difference between me and your cohort is I don't scream 'misogynist' at all the men here that don't want to protect female athletics.

I understand you mean well.

But that's different than doing well.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3399696/

The thing is, you're claiming that the governing bodies should use science and change things as necessary. Why don't they just change how they score things?

Sports are made up of all sorts of arbitrary rules. Road cycling doesn't allow your bike to weigh too little. Triathletes aren't allowed to draft each other. Sometimes it's about fairness, but other times about trying to fit into past norms. MLB doesn't use metal bats because there would be too many home runs.

It's interesting that swimming is the topic of the day, because in open water swimming, there's no real distinction between men and women in scoring.

Sports can be whatever we want them to be, but we shouldn't imagine that they are measuring more than they are.

That certainly could work, though I think that having to change literally every sport for 1/500,000th of the competitors is too high a bar.

But even if I agreed, transrights activists would never. Having separate record books and winners would drive right to the heart of the matter.

Because that would be acknowledging that transwomen aren't women.

And this is the cruxt of the argument.

Transwomen are women is absolutely correct from a gender basis. They should be able to have access to appropriate healthcare, love and marry who they want, dress how they want, express themselves how they want, and face no discrimination over it in the work force or in their day to day lives.

It's not correct from a sexual basis. There are differences. And from a science basis, clearly not every transwoman has finished transitioning. It's a process. Therefore there has to be guidelines if we have sex based criteria in sport.

And taking out sex based criteria in sport is damaging to millions of women. While our far left ideologues here clearly didn't understand it, the fact is that men are 10-20% better in physical characteristics that impact virtually every athletic competition. And that variance is high enough to deny women the ability to enter most competitive sports - it would stop 95% of them from competing, because the difference in being dominant and making the team is a few percent.

But, dogma being what it is, people can't assess this without that coloring their perceptions.

My perferred take isn't a slippery slope to banning transathletes from competing in normal competition.

I'd argue that your recommendation is much closer to that, because it would separate them as different. That's a wedge issue that the far right would absolutely use. You are halfway to their preferred outcome.

Sorry, I know it was given in good faith, but I have to disagree it would be helpful.

And notice Dicky reacted to this last comment as 'winner', even though it's 100% against what the transathlete community themselves want.

Because he's still engaged in dogmatic thinking, and has chosen a side.

And that side is simply opposition to whatever I say. LOL.

And now you're reacting to reps like Federal Farmer.
You're in Federal Farmer territory.
This is where you stare at your hands, and go "what has become of me? ".

So no denial, you do think it's a winning proposition to segregate trans people into their own group in athletic games. You are definitely closer to FF territory than I am there.

And of course people have to respond to your rep reactions Dicky.

You never say anything of consequence in your posts.

That's what Mburtonk said?
I don't see it.
Maybe you've got a different Ovaltine decoder wheel than me.

Different scoring based on transgender status is absolutely a form of segregation.

Don't worry, you'll get there eventually.

Boy, you're really being hard on yourself.

Not sure it would be helpful either, but at least now we have your response down.

Pitting women against each other and telling them it's for their own good is a sad way to go about things.

I don't expect to make you change your mind, but I'd bet that the majority of amateur athletes don't care who they're competing against. I'll continue to focus on supporting them and leave you to tilt at, as you say, this "wedge issue."

Ah, so if I disagree now I'm pitting women against each other. Clearly I was the one behind nearly half of this particular athlete's team sending a letter of protest stating that it was unfair for her to compete and urging them to enfore the new standard. Note this isn't saying 'no trans athletes.' It's stating that the old guideline was unfair and the new one should be immediately implemented.

I think you might find that women have their own minds and sense of fairness.

Some of them are for Lia competing, some of them are against.

But notice you are the only one saying men are telling them what to think and therefore their protest is not their own, genuine choice.

That's a pretty misogynistic take there, friend.

You might want to rethink that one.

"Omigawd!! the performative wokeness!! You can set your watch to it!! I'm going to throw up!! Blabbah-labbah-labbah-labbah!! *Splash!* ".
-Ten Lubak if he were at all consistent.

Oh, and I found this the other day - the study that the IOC, WAC and NCAA competition committees cited when making the decision to move the standard for transwomen athletes.

But no one here will read it, because they don't want to hear what it says.

I don't think this is 'performative wokeness.' It's just an absolute refusal to address data that challenges their dogmatic consensus. Even when there is credible scientific data that suggests a small but real shift in policy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/

So this is a peer reveiwed published paper in Endrocrinology Review, archived and stored at the National Medical Library at the National Institute of Health.

Abstract
Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puberty, there is no sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations or athletic performance, but from puberty onward a clear sex difference in athletic performance emerges as circulating testosterone concentrations rise in men because testes produce 30 times more testosterone than before puberty with circulating testosterone exceeding 15-fold that of women at any age. There is a wide sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations and a reproducible dose-response relationship between circulating testosterone and muscle mass and strength as well as circulating hemoglobin in both men and women. These dichotomies largely account for the sex differences in muscle mass and strength and circulating hemoglobin levels that result in at least an 8% to 12% ergogenic advantage in men. Suppression of elevated circulating testosterone of hyperandrogenic athletes results in negative effects on performance, which are reversed when suppression ceases. Based on the nonoverlapping, bimodal distribution of circulating testosterone concentration (measured by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry)—and making an allowance for women with mild hyperandrogenism, notably women with polycystic ovary syndrome (who are overrepresented in elite athletics)—the appropriate eligibility criterion for female athletic events should be a circulating testosterone of <5.0 nmol/L. This would include all women other than those with untreated hyperandrogenic disorders of sexual development and noncompliant male-to-female transgender as well as testosterone-treated female-to-male transgender or androgen dopers.


Who are these horrid free thinkers that would dare challenge social justice dogma?

David J Handelsman,1,2Angelica L Hirschberg,3,4 and Stephane Bermon5,6

Here's their credentials.

Disclosure Summary: D.J.H. is a medical and scientific consultant for the IAAF and to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency. He is a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Health, Medicine and Research Committee and of the IOC working group on hyperandrogenic female and transgender athletes. He has received institutional grant support from Besins Healthcare and Lawley for investigator-initiated clinical studies in testosterone pharmacology and has provided expert testimony in testosterone litigation. A.L.H. is a medical and scientific consultant for the Swedish Olympic Committee and a member of the IAAF and IOC working groups on hyperandrogenic female athletes and transgender athletes. She has received grant support from the IAAF for a study on testosterone and physical performance in women. S.B. is a medical and scientific consultant for the IAAF and a member of the IAAF and IOC working groups on hyperandrogenic female athletes and transgender athletes.

So the competition committees literally cited scientific experts in this field whose business it is to study this specific topic.

As to the subject of gender vs sex, from the same paper:

The terms sex and gender are often confused and used as if interchangeable. Sex is an objective, specific biological state, a term with distinct, fixed facets, notably genetic, chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, and phenotypic (including genital) sex, each of which has a characteristic defined binary form. Whereas all facets of biological sex are almost always aligned so that assignment of sex at birth is straightforward, rare instances in which two or more facets of biological sex conflict constitute an intersex state, now referred to as disorders (or differences) of sex development (DSDs) (3). In contrast, gender is a subjective, malleable, self-identified social construct that defines a person’s individual gender role and orientation. Prompted by biological, personal, and societal factors, volitional expression of gender can take on virtually any form limited only by the imagination, with some individuals asserting they have not just a single natal gender but two genders, none, a distinct third gender, or gender that varies (fluidly) from time to time. Hence, whereas gender is usually consistent with biological sex as assigned at birth, in a few it can differ during life. For example, if gender were the basis for eligibility for female sports, an athlete could conceivably be eligible to compete at the same Olympics in both female and male events. These features render the unassailable personal assertion of gender identity incapable of forming a fair, consistent sex classification in elite sports.

So there, @mburtonk, you know where I stand.

With some of the foremost credentialed experts in their field.

Dogma, dogma, dogma?
Lol?

Science is against you. But I'll keep beating you over the head with it.

You just keep proving my point.

TLDR, though, right Dicky! LOL.