Terf me out...

[cashead]

It really wasn't Donny!

The IAAF seems to have done a lot of work on testosterone levels - though not specifically I think transwomen. They've come up with a sophisticated set of rules. I'm content to think they've probably got it largely right on testosterone. I get that there are some lasting advantages such as height since a transwoman can have reached heights that her cis sisters simply cannot. It's clearly something which needs more information and research though.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the likes of Semenya and Chand on the testosterone limits, as they are definitely women, but are being punished for having bodies that naturally give them an advantage, just like Indurain's ridiculous resting heart rate, Thorpe's feet, or Margo Dydek's height (7'2 cis female basketballer). Seems unfair to laud some physiological differences that give competitive advantage and penalise others on an arbitrary limit.

There's not an easy answer. One of the articles I linked when noting that sex was more complicated than XX/XY pointed out that the IOC has been trying to find a definitive test that separates men from women perfectly for decades and are no closer now than they were when they started.

Puja

ETA. Looking up "tall female basketballers" led me to this top 10 list where they're all over 6'6: https://sport.one/the-top-10-tallest-fe ... -the-wnba/ So even a very tall tran woman who is still hauling around a male skeletal structure and height with a woman's muscles isn't going to be of a height unreachable by cis women in sport.

The Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

[Coco]

It really wasn't Donny!

The IAAF seems to have done a lot of work on testosterone levels - though not specifically I think transwomen. They've come up with a sophisticated set of rules. I'm content to think they've probably got it largely right on testosterone. I get that there are some lasting advantages such as height since a transwoman can have reached heights that her cis sisters simply cannot. It's clearly something which needs more information and research though.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the likes of Semenya and Chand on the testosterone limits, as they are definitely women, but are being punished for having bodies that naturally give them an advantage, just like Indurain's ridiculous resting heart rate, Thorpe's feet, or Margo Dydek's height (7'2 cis female basketballer). Seems unfair to laud some physiological differences that give competitive advantage and penalise others on an arbitrary limit.

There's not an easy answer. One of the articles I linked when noting that sex was more complicated than XX/XY pointed out that the IOC has been trying to find a definitive test that separates men from women perfectly for decades and are no closer now than they were when they started.

Puja

ETA. Looking up "tall female basketballers" led me to this top 10 list where they're all over 6'6: https://sport.one/the-top-10-tallest-fe ... -the-wnba/ So even a very tall tran woman who is still hauling around a male skeletal structure and height with a woman's muscles isn't going to be of a height unreachable by cis women in sport.

The Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

On the "obliterating records out there" idea... obliterating records has nothing to do with it. If obliterating records was the litmus test, it would be cut and dry.

And Cashead... making it a black person vs. white person issue? What the hell is wrong with you? Color of her skin has nothing to do with it. Color of the people on the board have nothing to do with it. That statement is racist in and of itself and frankly weakens your stance, pretty much showing your inability to try and see things from another perspective. You know having a semblence of integrity and respect for other peoples opinions has its merits. You always resort to name calling when you get challenged or put off. Cant you just allow people to say their view without taking it personal or as if they are trying to prove you wrong? And for fucks sake leave skin color out of it FOR ONCE.

[Puja]

I do have a lot of sympathy for the likes of Semenya and Chand on the testosterone limits, as they are definitely women, but are being punished for having bodies that naturally give them an advantage, just like Indurain's ridiculous resting heart rate, Thorpe's feet, or Margo Dydek's height (7'2 cis female basketballer). Seems unfair to laud some physiological differences that give competitive advantage and penalise others on an arbitrary limit.

There's not an easy answer. One of the articles I linked when noting that sex was more complicated than XX/XY pointed out that the IOC has been trying to find a definitive test that separates men from women perfectly for decades and are no closer now than they were when they started.

Puja

ETA. Looking up "tall female basketballers" led me to this top 10 list where they're all over 6'6: https://sport.one/the-top-10-tallest-fe ... -the-wnba/ So even a very tall tran woman who is still hauling around a male skeletal structure and height with a woman's muscles isn't going to be of a height unreachable by cis women in sport.

The Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport. You're looking at strength training, which means he possibly has to work harder in the gym than his peers. However, swimming anaerobic exercise and stamina based, where the build-up of lactic acid in muscles causes fatigue and cramp. That gives Phelps a massive advantage, as he can push for longer. So he'd be a crap bodybuilder or weightlifter, but he's a ridiculous swimmer.

Testosterone has very little impact on stamina events, hence the rationale behind the Semenya rulings only covering shorter distance events, and why cyclists tend to cheat with blood doping rather than testosterone boosts.

Puja

[Coco]

The Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport. You're looking at strength training, which means he possibly has to work harder in the gym than his peers. However, swimming anaerobic exercise and stamina based, where the build-up of lactic acid in muscles causes fatigue and cramp. That gives Phelps a massive advantage, as he can push for longer. So he'd be a crap bodybuilder or weightlifter, but he's a ridiculous swimmer.

Testosterone has very little impact on stamina events, hence the rationale behind the Semenya rulings only covering shorter distance events, and why cyclists tend to cheat with blood doping rather than testosterone boosts.

Puja

Ah ha! Thank you for clarifying.

[morepork]

The “obliterating records thing” is entirely relevant because it would be proof positive of advantage conferred by being transgender if manifest. Because it is not, the thought experiment stands. If you want to go down that road then the conversation that needs to be had is that has an athlete in question transitioned for the express purpose of receiving praise for excellence in a non professional competition? The weight of formal psychiatric data available for transgender people suggests this is near if not actually at the bottom of the list of potential motivators. I would respectfully suggest it isn’t actually a problem. If what I posit holds water, would not the process of publically scrutinizing the gender of an athlete, with all of the physical and psychological stress incurred, be completely out of proportion to the perceived problem?

[cashead]

Testosterone has very little impact on stamina events, hence the rationale behind the Semenya rulings only covering shorter distance events

And I don't buy their rationale for a single, solitary second. It must just be a complete coincidence that the ruling only applies to the EXACT events Semenya competes in, and not the 100m or 200m, or hurdles, right?

[cashead]

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong, but Puja's beaten me to it.

On the "obliterating records out there" idea... obliterating records has nothing to do with it. If obliterating records was the litmus test, it would be cut and dry.

Obliterating records has plenty to do with it. Explain how it doesn't.

And Cashead... making it a black person vs. white person issue? What the hell is wrong with you? Color of her skin has nothing to do with it. Color of the people on the board have nothing to do with it. That statement is racist in and of itself and frankly weakens your stance, pretty much showing your inability to try and see things from another perspective. You know having a semblence of integrity and respect for other peoples opinions has its merits. You always resort to name calling when you get challenged or put off. Cant you just allow people to say their view without taking it personal or as if they are trying to prove you wrong? And for fucks sake leave skin color out of it FOR ONCE.

Who the fuck are you to dictate to me what points I can bring up in this discussion?

[cashead]

The “obliterating records thing” is entirely relevant because it would be proof positive of advantage conferred by being transgender if manifest. Because it is not, the thought experiment stands. If you want to go down that road then the conversation that needs to be had is that has an athlete in question transitioned for the express purpose of receiving praise for excellence in a non professional competition? The weight of formal psychiatric data available for transgender people suggests this is near if not actually at the bottom of the list of potential motivators. I would respectfully suggest it isn’t actually a problem. If what I posit holds water, would not the process of publically scrutinizing the gender of an athlete, with all of the physical and psychological stress incurred, be completely out of proportion to the perceived problem?

This guy gets it. The data that is available strongly indicates this is the case.

[Stom]

The “obliterating records thing” is entirely relevant because it would be proof positive of advantage conferred by being transgender if manifest. Because it is not, the thought experiment stands. If you want to go down that road then the conversation that needs to be had is that has an athlete in question transitioned for the express purpose of receiving praise for excellence in a non professional competition? The weight of formal psychiatric data available for transgender people suggests this is near if not actually at the bottom of the list of potential motivators. I would respectfully suggest it isn’t actually a problem. If what I posit holds water, would not the process of publically scrutinizing the gender of an athlete, with all of the physical and psychological stress incurred, be completely out of proportion to the perceived problem?

And here's the crux of it.

Why the fuck are we focusing on this? It's not a problem currently and is such a potentially tiny problem, too, that it just seems ridiculous to focus on it!

I was actually having a discussion about trans women the other day with someone who couldn't get their head around the idea that gender and sexuality are not always linked. "Why would a man want to become a woman and then still fuck women?"...

Yeah, now THAT Is a problem. And that should be the crux of it here.

There is a stigma attached to trans that doesn't exist for homosexuals. Mainly because you cannot "accidentally" have sex with a gay guy. And we have depictions such as Jim Carrey in whatever film that was showering furiously after finding out the woman was trans...or in Family Guy...and there are plenty more.

If you have a problem with a trans woman or man using your bathroom, you have a problem with yourself and you are projecting. They're not out to get you. They just want to be who they really are.

As for the original post, is it not the case that homosexuals want their own label? That they want it to be "OK to be gay".

While trans people just want to be a woman or a man. They don't want it to be "OK to be trans", they just want to be left in peace as a woman or a man.

Or have I read that wrong?

[Stom]

Oh, and Cash, there's no need to be a dick.

Just compare: Puja said

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport.

You said

You're wrong, but Puja's beaten me to it.

Which one do you think is more likely to get a positive response? Which one do you think is more likely to get someone to change their opinion on something?

[morepork]

Wealth inequality
Climate change
Perpetual war and crimes against humanity
Access to effective medicine
A handful of female athletes that can run faster than other females


Guess which one sets the voters off the most?


People can be such cunts.

[cashead]

Oh, and Cash, there's no need to be a dick.

Just compare: Puja said

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport.

You said

You're wrong, but Puja's beaten me to it.

Which one do you think is more likely to get a positive response? Which one do you think is more likely to get someone to change their opinion on something?

Fuck off with your sanctimonious pearl-clutching, thanks.

[morepork]

While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

[Stom]

While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

And you do that by treating others with respect. Otherwise they're going to just double down. It's so damn important.

[cashead]

While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

And you do that by treating others with respect. Otherwise they're going to just double down. It's so damn important.

Obviously achieved by lecturing others about decorum. You self-important, sanctimonious shit.

[Molitor5901]

Former swimming Olympic silver medalist and hawt babe Sharron Davies defies interwebz LGBTQSTUV1234....∞ hate mob:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... _share-top

'When you speak up, you're called a hater. The thing that woke me up a little more after the IOC changed the rules about trans women competing against women was all the flack poor Martina got.'

She means tennis player Martina Navratilova, who was one of the first global sportswomen to come out as lesbian.

She is an honoured champion of gay rights but was roundly turned upon when she, like Sharron, said earlier this year that allowing trans women to compete in women's sport was 'unfair'.

Accusations of transphobia followed and she was chucked off the LGBTQ athlete advocacy group's advisory board. She has since apologised for using the term 'cheating' and called for a debate based 'not on feeling or emotion but science.'

'To be a sportswoman, you work so hard for so many years,' says Sharron. 'I worked six hours a day for six days a week with no holidays from the age of eight.

'I just wanted to win a race. To have to turn round and see someone in the lane next to me who's gone, 'Do you know what, I identify as a woman.

'OK, so I have at least a 10 per cent advantage over you because of my biology, but you're going to have to deal with it' is something I'd have a massive problem with.'

She ticks off on her fingers examples of the 'unfairnesses'.

Take the New Zealand power-lifter who was 'nothing really special' as a man, but retired, transitioned, returned to compete as a trans woman and outlifted the next female opponent by 19kg.

Or in the 17 American states where boys self-identify as girls and go from being 'pretty average' male athletes to the 'very best' female athletes, thus securing lucrative scholarships to some of the most sought-after American sport colleges.

'They've not taken a hormone. They've not had surgery,' says Sharron. 'All they've done is self-identify, and they're wiping the floor with all the girls.'

[Puja]

Former swimming Olympic silver medalist and hawt babe Sharron Davies defies interwebz LGBTQSTUV1234....∞ hate mob:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... _share-top

'When you speak up, you're called a hater. The thing that woke me up a little more after the IOC changed the rules about trans women competing against women was all the flack poor Martina got.'

She means tennis player Martina Navratilova, who was one of the first global sportswomen to come out as lesbian.

She is an honoured champion of gay rights but was roundly turned upon when she, like Sharron, said earlier this year that allowing trans women to compete in women's sport was 'unfair'.

Accusations of transphobia followed and she was chucked off the LGBTQ athlete advocacy group's advisory board. She has since apologised for using the term 'cheating' and called for a debate based 'not on feeling or emotion but science.'

'To be a sportswoman, you work so hard for so many years,' says Sharron. 'I worked six hours a day for six days a week with no holidays from the age of eight.

'I just wanted to win a race. To have to turn round and see someone in the lane next to me who's gone, 'Do you know what, I identify as a woman.

'OK, so I have at least a 10 per cent advantage over you because of my biology, but you're going to have to deal with it' is something I'd have a massive problem with.'

She ticks off on her fingers examples of the 'unfairnesses'.

Take the New Zealand power-lifter who was 'nothing really special' as a man, but retired, transitioned, returned to compete as a trans woman and outlifted the next female opponent by 19kg.

Or in the 17 American states where boys self-identify as girls and go from being 'pretty average' male athletes to the 'very best' female athletes, thus securing lucrative scholarships to some of the most sought-after American sport colleges.

'They've not taken a hormone. They've not had surgery,' says Sharron. 'All they've done is self-identify, and they're wiping the floor with all the girls.'

Good for her and good for you. Clearly you know a lot on the subject and are really exciting individuals going against the mainstream. Well done.

Puja

[Molitor5901]

A hate group is "the mainstream" now???

[Puja]

While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

Not sure I'd agree with that. If you're just looking to illuminate facts, you may as well have a blog. A debate should be about both teaching and learning from your opponent(s) and changing minds, while rare, is absolutely the goal for me. Or, sometimes, changing my own mind if I'm convinced by someone else's argument.

Of course, there are some arguments where your opponent is never going to learn or educate cause they have no interest in it. Thankfully sometimes they advertise that fact right off the bat and you can move on straight away (sardonic comment optional).

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It's rather odd to point out that women's athletics records haven't been obliterated by trans athletes when (a) the numbers of trans people currently entering sport are small for various social reasons, but are unlikely to remain so; and (b) we absolutely know that a fair few of the women's records, and certainly the record in Semenya's event, are held by women who were part of extensive doping programmes that often relied on massive amounts of testosterone.

[Puja]

It's rather odd to point out that women's athletics records haven't been obliterated by trans athletes when (a) the numbers of trans people currently entering sport are small for various social reasons, but are unlikely to remain so; and (b) we absolutely know that a fair few of the women's records, and certainly the record in Semenya's event, are held by women who were part of extensive doping programmes that often relied on massive amounts of testosterone.

B seems largely irrelevant considering that the rules for trans women in sport require them to have T levels below that which some cis women can have. So the fact that testosterone can have a massive effect on sporting performance in certain events doesn't seem particularly germane to a group of people who are taking drugs that inhibit their body's ability to produce and use it.

Puja

[Molitor5901]

B seems largely irrelevant considering that the rules for trans women in sport require them to have T levels below that which some cis women can have. So the fact that testosterone can have a massive effect on sporting performance in certain events doesn't seem particularly germane to a group of people who are taking drugs that inhibit their body's ability to produce and use it.

Puja

MTF transgenders have invariably undergone male puberty before they transition. Post puberty testosterone has practically zero influence on skeletal structure, height, muscle fibers etc.

In other words MTF transgenders who have undergone puberty already possess the physical characteristics of a man and therefore would have a physical advantage over females in track and field events.

[Puja]

B seems largely irrelevant considering that the rules for trans women in sport require them to have T levels below that which some cis women can have. So the fact that testosterone can have a massive effect on sporting performance in certain events doesn't seem particularly germane to a group of people who are taking drugs that inhibit their body's ability to produce and use it.

Puja

MTF transgenders have invariably undergone male puberty before they transition. Post puberty testosterone has practically zero influence on skeletal structure, height, muscle fibers etc.

In other words MTF transgenders who have undergone puberty already possess the physical characteristics of a man and therefore would have a physical advantage over females in track and field events.

If you would care to read the rest of the thread and the links shared and discussed, it's scientifically established that after 12 months on anti-androgens, muscle fibres, bone density, red blood cell count, etc, go to the same level as a baseline female (and below the level of most top-level athletes). Yes, there would still be the advantages from skeletal structure, height, and organ size, but a) there are lots of tall and broad cis-women, and b) carrying that skeleton around without the muscles, red blood cells, and hormones that originally came with it is likely more of a deficit than an advantage.

As I said, already very well discussed earlier in the thread.

Puja

[Coco]

While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

Not sure I'd agree with that. If you're just looking to illuminate facts, you may as well have a blog. A debate should be about both teaching and learning from your opponent(s) and changing minds, while rare, is absolutely the goal for me. Or, sometimes, changing my own mind if I'm convinced by someone else's argument.

Of course, there are some arguments where your opponent is never going to learn or educate cause they have no interest in it. Thankfully sometimes they advertise that fact right off the bat and you can move on straight away (sardonic comment optional).

Puja

Puja, You have always seemed fair to me and actually "interested" in viewpoints that differ from your own. You seem to read a post in its entirety, suspending judgement, and inquiring about information or the other person's thoughts. That is the difference between dialogue or discussion and debate. I respect that 100%. Debate is combative and seeks to be victorious or better than the other person. I can honestly say I have OFTEN learned things from an opposing view or opinion than my own - right here on this board at times. Without dialogue, there can be no meaningful conversation.

[Molitor5901]

If you would care to read the rest of the thread and the links shared and discussed, it's scientifically established that after 12 months on anti-androgens, muscle fibres, bone density, red blood cell count, etc, go to the same level as a baseline female (and below the level of most top-level athletes). Yes, there would still be the advantages from skeletal structure, height, and organ size, but a) there are lots of tall and broad cis-women, and b) carrying that skeleton around without the muscles, red blood cells, and hormones that originally came with it is likely more of a deficit than an advantage.

As I said, already very well discussed earlier in the thread.

Puja

If it were discussed comprehensively, you would have at least broached the role that puberty plays creating a distinction between males and females; particularly its influence in the formation of limbs, muscles, the skeleton etc.

You do agree that there is a sharp morphological distinction distinction between males and females after puberty and you do agree that it is a factor in making boys stronger than girls?

Then you must agree that men who have undergone puberty and subsequently decide to transition to female already have the physical benefits that male puberty confers?

there are lots of tall and broad cis-women

How many is "lots"? I assume you mean "tall and broad" in the sense that they are physically equal to the average male???

What percentage of the female population meet these criteria?