flyguy89 wrote:

This entire post is violence against the trans community.

Words aren't violence. Stop with this stuff.

flipdewaf wrote:

afcjets wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The pronouns use is to do with gender the athletic ability is due to sex. It’s pretty basic.

I wasn’t going to get in to “the left does this and the right does that” stuff but I now feel compelled for some reason. Whilst not an all out 100% thing then tendencies appear to be that.

The individual freedom loving right don’t want to allow someone to choose how the identify, they think you can’t choose your Gender…you can.

The truth and fact loving left think that you can choose your sex, they you can choose to change biology… you can’t.

Fred

Until recently they were synonymous and on most forms it still says Sex M/F.

Historic genuine ignorance is not a valid excuse for future wilful ignorance.

afcjets wrote:

Do you actually think Lia checks the M box? (And you schooling her on the difference between sex and gender would likely go as well as me explaining to a black woman what it's like being a black woman in America today.)

A false equivalence, me explaining to Lia what it’s like to be a transgender athlete would be the equivalent to what you suggest. Schooling a black woman in the genetic predisposition to certain diseases and conditions would be mor Walton the lines of what I suggested.

afcjets wrote:

So it basically comes down to semantics and this individual freedom loving rightie (a word I learned from Seb that I love)
has no issue with Lia checking whatever box she wants. But don't be surprised if someone changes it when he shows up in the locker room and starts swinging a sword.

Make all changing rooms communal and with cubicles. It’s the norm where I live. Is the issue of “swinging the sword” only an issue in a space with females? It would appear to be a question of consent and exposure before it’s one of either gender or sex.

Should I, as a male who identifies as a male be afforded less protections from “swinging the sword” than someone else? Odd.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should we be forced to use communal changing rooms with cubicleS? The number of trans people is less than .05% of the population, this really is the tail wagging the dog if we have to make allowances for them.

Several of my female friends hate using communal toilets. Since men don’t need to sit to pee we don’t have a problem peeing all over the seats, women sit, now they need to clean the piss off before they use them. Communal toilets appear to be a backwards step to me if you’re female.

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Until recently they were synonymous and on most forms it still says Sex M/F.

Historic genuine ignorance is not a valid excuse for future wilful ignorance.

afcjets wrote:

Do you actually think Lia checks the M box? (And you schooling her on the difference between sex and gender would likely go as well as me explaining to a black woman what it's like being a black woman in America today.)

A false equivalence, me explaining to Lia what it’s like to be a transgender athlete would be the equivalent to what you suggest. Schooling a black woman in the genetic predisposition to certain diseases and conditions would be mor Walton the lines of what I suggested.

afcjets wrote:

So it basically comes down to semantics and this individual freedom loving rightie (a word I learned from Seb that I love)
has no issue with Lia checking whatever box she wants. But don't be surprised if someone changes it when he shows up in the locker room and starts swinging a sword.

Make all changing rooms communal and with cubicles. It’s the norm where I live. Is the issue of “swinging the sword” only an issue in a space with females? It would appear to be a question of consent and exposure before it’s one of either gender or sex.

Should I, as a male who identifies as a male be afforded less protections from “swinging the sword” than someone else? Odd.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should we be forced to use communal changing rooms with cubicleS?

Forced? If someone is forcing you to get undressed in a particular place then I’m afraid you have more problems than a simple gender vs sex debate.

If you mean “ the place where you ‘CHOOSE’ to get changed is less to your liking then ‘CHOOSE’ to go somewhere else.

I’m currently ‘forced’ to get changed in the same room as gingers. I want ginger free changing facilities…

Kiwirob wrote:

The number of trans people is less than .05% of the population, this really is the tail wagging the dog if we have to make allowances for them.

Why is the assumption that the allowance is for them? Surely it’s useful for protection from sexual predatory behaviour of anyone. As well as the privacy as seen fit by any individual.

Kiwirob wrote:

Several of my female friends hate using communal toilets. Since men don’t need to sit to pee we don’t have a problem peeing all over the seats, women sit, now they need to clean the piss off before they use them. Communal toilets appear to be a backwards step to me if you’re female.

Well when you see them pissing on the seat why don’t you tell them to stop?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

AeroVega wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Again: the "problem" that needs to be fixed is education.

No, that is not the problem that this thread is about.

The problem that this thread is about is that female sports is being ruined by letting transgender men compete as women.

Right. Education. It is not simply putting on a bikini and diving in. These people have been transitioning for a very long time. Mental therapy, medication to replace hormones, surgeries, as well as training for their sport. Call them men all you want but they are working as hard as they can and for as long as allowed to be women.

I see no one complaining about women transitioning. No outrage over the extra boost of testosterone, the therapy, the simply putting on a cup and diving in. Gee..... I wonder why? All this fake "but men aren't women" outrage but zero "but women are not men" outrage.

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Historic genuine ignorance is not a valid excuse for future wilful ignorance.

A false equivalence, me explaining to Lia what it’s like to be a transgender athlete would be the equivalent to what you suggest. Schooling a black woman in the genetic predisposition to certain diseases and conditions would be mor Walton the lines of what I suggested.

Make all changing rooms communal and with cubicles. It’s the norm where I live. Is the issue of “swinging the sword” only an issue in a space with females? It would appear to be a question of consent and exposure before it’s one of either gender or sex.

Should I, as a male who identifies as a male be afforded less protections from “swinging the sword” than someone else? Odd.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should we be forced to use communal changing rooms with cubicleS?

Forced? If someone is forcing you to get undressed in a particular place then I’m afraid you have more problems than a simple gender vs sex debate.

If you mean “ the place where you ‘CHOOSE’ to get changed is less to your liking then ‘CHOOSE’ to go somewhere else.

I’m currently ‘forced’ to get changed in the same room as gingers. I want ginger free changing facilities…

Kiwirob wrote:

The number of trans people is less than .05% of the population, this really is the tail wagging the dog if we have to make allowances for them.

Why is the assumption that the allowance is for them? Surely it’s useful for protection from sexual predatory behaviour of anyone. As well as the privacy as seen fit by any individual.

Kiwirob wrote:

Several of my female friends hate using communal toilets. Since men don’t need to sit to pee we don’t have a problem peeing all over the seats, women sit, now they need to clean the piss off before they use them. Communal toilets appear to be a backwards step to me if you’re female.

Well when you see them pissing on the seat why don’t you tell them to stop?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you take away all the gendered changing rooms and toilets as various SJW would like then we are all forced to used them. Why should we have gender neutral changing rooms and toilets, what benefit do they serve, just because an infinitesimal number of people have an issue? Sorry but no, this is absurd.

I can't see people pissing on seats since sit down toilets are all in cubicles. If you have a female in your life ask them what they think of gender neutral toilets.

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why should we be forced to use communal changing rooms with cubicleS?

Forced? If someone is forcing you to get undressed in a particular place then I’m afraid you have more problems than a simple gender vs sex debate.

If you mean “ the place where you ‘CHOOSE’ to get changed is less to your liking then ‘CHOOSE’ to go somewhere else.

I’m currently ‘forced’ to get changed in the same room as gingers. I want ginger free changing facilities…

Kiwirob wrote:

The number of trans people is less than .05% of the population, this really is the tail wagging the dog if we have to make allowances for them.

Why is the assumption that the allowance is for them? Surely it’s useful for protection from sexual predatory behaviour of anyone. As well as the privacy as seen fit by any individual.

Kiwirob wrote:

Several of my female friends hate using communal toilets. Since men don’t need to sit to pee we don’t have a problem peeing all over the seats, women sit, now they need to clean the piss off before they use them. Communal toilets appear to be a backwards step to me if you’re female.

Well when you see them pissing on the seat why don’t you tell them to stop?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you take away all the gendered changing rooms and toilets as various SJW would like then we are all forced to used them. Why should we have gender neutral changing rooms and toilets, what benefit do they serve, just because an infinitesimal number of people have an issue? Sorry but no, this is absurd.

I haven’t suggested gender neutral changing rooms. I said cubicles. You seem to be fascinated by communal changing for some reason, seems to demonstrate why it’s not only for the protection of transgendered folk.

Kiwirob wrote:

I can't see people pissing on seats since sit down toilets are all in cubicles.

You mean sometimes people prefer privacy even from members of their own sex?

Kiwirob wrote:

If you have a female in your life ask them what they think of gender neutral toilets.

I have 3 in my house, they all operate fine.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here we have the most nude beaches, but changing rooms aren't a thing, at least not at school or public facilities like pools, etc., everyone has a closed place to change, to "gender neutrality" wouldn't really be an issue.

Changing rooms where everyone is/can be naked and of both sexes as teens/young adults might be fine if it's in the culture and started young, otherwise it's bound to cause more issues than it solves.

seb146 wrote:

These people have been transitioning for a very long time. Mental therapy, medication to replace hormones, surgeries, as well as training for their sport. Call them men all you want but they are working as hard as they can and for as long as allowed to be women.

But have they? Since it's been reported that they still have their male sexual organs, it appears they haven't been undergoing hormone therapy or surgeries.

slider wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

This entire post is violence against the trans community.

Words aren't violence. Stop with this stuff.

That was sarcasm.

flipdewaf wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Forced? If someone is forcing you to get undressed in a particular place then I’m afraid you have more problems than a simple gender vs sex debate.

If you mean “ the place where you ‘CHOOSE’ to get changed is less to your liking then ‘CHOOSE’ to go somewhere else.

I’m currently ‘forced’ to get changed in the same room as gingers. I want ginger free changing facilities…


Why is the assumption that the allowance is for them? Surely it’s useful for protection from sexual predatory behaviour of anyone. As well as the privacy as seen fit by any individual.


Well when you see them pissing on the seat why don’t you tell them to stop?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you take away all the gendered changing rooms and toilets as various SJW would like then we are all forced to used them. Why should we have gender neutral changing rooms and toilets, what benefit do they serve, just because an infinitesimal number of people have an issue? Sorry but no, this is absurd.

I haven’t suggested gender neutral changing rooms. I said cubicles. You seem to be fascinated by communal changing for some reason, seems to demonstrate why it’s not only for the protection of transgendered folk.

Kiwirob wrote:

I can't see people pissing on seats since sit down toilets are all in cubicles.

You mean sometimes people prefer privacy even from members of their own sex?

Kiwirob wrote:

If you have a female in your life ask them what they think of gender neutral toilets.

I have 3 in my house, they all operate fine.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why should cubicles be added when they aren’t needed today? I haven’t been to a sports club, pool or gym in Norway which has had cubicles.

Kiwirob wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Until recently they were synonymous and on most forms it still says Sex M/F.

Historic genuine ignorance is not a valid excuse for future wilful ignorance.

afcjets wrote:

Do you actually think Lia checks the M box? (And you schooling her on the difference between sex and gender would likely go as well as me explaining to a black woman what it's like being a black woman in America today.)

A false equivalence, me explaining to Lia what it’s like to be a transgender athlete would be the equivalent to what you suggest. Schooling a black woman in the genetic predisposition to certain diseases and conditions would be mor Walton the lines of what I suggested.

afcjets wrote:

So it basically comes down to semantics and this individual freedom loving rightie (a word I learned from Seb that I love)
has no issue with Lia checking whatever box she wants. But don't be surprised if someone changes it when he shows up in the locker room and starts swinging a sword.

Make all changing rooms communal and with cubicles. It’s the norm where I live. Is the issue of “swinging the sword” only an issue in a space with females? It would appear to be a question of consent and exposure before it’s one of either gender or sex.

Should I, as a male who identifies as a male be afforded less protections from “swinging the sword” than someone else? Odd.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should we be forced to use communal changing rooms with cubicleS? The number of trans people is less than .05% of the population, this really is the tail wagging the dog if we have to make allowances for them.

Several of my female friends hate using communal toilets. Since men don’t need to sit to pee we don’t have a problem peeing all over the seats, women sit, now they need to clean the piss off before they use them. Communal toilets appear to be a backwards step to me if you’re female.

Men do not have to pee on the seat, getting it straight into the bowl is not hard.

Equally, if you do get it wrong, there is nothing to stop you wiping up.

bennett123 wrote:

Men do not have to pee on the seat, getting it straight into the bowl is not hard.

You must not be as old as some of us...enlarged prostate, weak stream, etc.

63.

But my aim is still good.

If you miss, you can still wipe it up.

Didn't Canada recognize 140 genders ?

flipdewaf wrote:

afcjets wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The pronouns use is to do with gender the athletic ability is due to sex. It’s pretty basic.

I wasn’t going to get in to “the left does this and the right does that” stuff but I now feel compelled for some reason. Whilst not an all out 100% thing then tendencies appear to be that.

The individual freedom loving right don’t want to allow someone to choose how the identify, they think you can’t choose your Gender…you can.

The truth and fact loving left think that you can choose your sex, they you can choose to change biology… you can’t.

Fred

Until recently they were synonymous and on most forms it still says Sex M/F.

Historic genuine ignorance is not a valid excuse for future wilful ignorance.

afcjets wrote:

Do you actually think Lia checks the M box? (And you schooling her on the difference between sex and gender would likely go as well as me explaining to a black woman what it's like being a black woman in America today.)

A false equivalence, me explaining to Lia what it’s like to be a transgender athlete would be the equivalent to what you suggest. Schooling a black woman in the genetic predisposition to certain diseases and conditions would be mor Walton the lines of what I suggested.

afcjets wrote:

So it basically comes down to semantics and this individual freedom loving rightie (a word I learned from Seb that I love)
has no issue with Lia checking whatever box she wants. But don't be surprised if someone changes it when he shows up in the locker room and starts swinging a sword.

Make all changing rooms communal and with cubicles. It’s the norm where I live. Is the issue of “swinging the sword” only an issue in a space with females? It would appear to be a question of consent and exposure before it’s one of either gender or sex.

Should I, as a male who identifies as a male be afforded less protections from “swinging the sword” than someone else? Odd.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am in agreement with you. So long as all households are different and people acculturate to different levels of privacy growing up, it's just logical to afford a private changing space in situations where dressing/bathing will be required. It's more costly, but it ensures everyone has the option.

The whole thing is pretty dumb. I don’t find gender relevant for most things in life. At my work, it is irrelevant. School, also irrelevant. If people want to negate the definition of women’s sports, go for it. A man can jump farther than a woman, so we can just bring women’s long jump to a conclusion, for example. Instead, there will be a human long jump competition.

The humans who will win the human long jump competition will most likely have XY chromosomes and male organs. Whatever. Who cares! I guess someday, we will never even remember when women competed in athletics. Maybe people will laugh that that ever took place. Just my tangent on this topic. Provided free of charge, and worth just about that.

LCDFlight wrote:

The whole thing is pretty dumb. I don’t find gender relevant for most things in life. At my work, it is irrelevant. School, also irrelevant. If people want to negate the definition of women’s sports, go for it. A man can jump farther than a woman, so we can just bring women’s long jump to a conclusion, for example. Instead, there will be a human long jump competition. The humans who win will be traditionally understood to be men, with traditional male biology that causes a huge change in performance. I guess someday, we will never eve remember when women competed in athletics. Just my tangent on this topic. Provided free of charge, and worth exactly that.

It's dumb because organizations that presume to be taken seriously regarding 'preservation' of their sport (which are all just games invented to keep us from getting bored) are fouling everything up by not taking their own responsibilities seriously. These are salaried positions at NCAA and elsewhere, so it's the incompetence that is most annoying.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The whole thing is pretty dumb. I don’t find gender relevant for most things in life. At my work, it is irrelevant. School, also irrelevant. If people want to negate the definition of women’s sports, go for it. A man can jump farther than a woman, so we can just bring women’s long jump to a conclusion, for example. Instead, there will be a human long jump competition. The humans who win will be traditionally understood to be men, with traditional male biology that causes a huge change in performance. I guess someday, we will never eve remember when women competed in athletics. Just my tangent on this topic. Provided free of charge, and worth exactly that.

It's dumb because organizations that presume to be taken seriously regarding 'preservation' of their sport (which are all just games invented to keep us from getting bored) are fouling everything up by not taking their own responsibilities seriously. These are salaried positions at NCAA and elsewhere, so it's the incompetence that is most annoying.

Men’s athletics will really not be affected by this. The question is about whether we need women’s athletics. The whole idea of women’s athletics is to provide a venue for athletic women and not men. In my view the NCAA has a responsibility to maintain venues for women compete, without competing against XY biological men. But I guess the definition of woman has been negated now. There is no definition… right? So we can just end women’s athletics. After all, it doesn’t mean anything.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The whole thing is pretty dumb. I don’t find gender relevant for most things in life. At my work, it is irrelevant. School, also irrelevant. If people want to negate the definition of women’s sports, go for it. A man can jump farther than a woman, so we can just bring women’s long jump to a conclusion, for example. Instead, there will be a human long jump competition. The humans who win will be traditionally understood to be men, with traditional male biology that causes a huge change in performance. I guess someday, we will never eve remember when women competed in athletics. Just my tangent on this topic. Provided free of charge, and worth exactly that.

It's dumb because organizations that presume to be taken seriously regarding 'preservation' of their sport (which are all just games invented to keep us from getting bored) are fouling everything up by not taking their own responsibilities seriously. These are salaried positions at NCAA and elsewhere, so it's the incompetence that is most annoying.

Men’s athletics will really not be affected by this. The question is about whether we need women’s athletics. The whole idea of women’s athletics is to provide a venue for athletic women and not men. In my view the NCAA has a responsibility to maintain venues for women compete, without competing against XY biological men. But I guess the definition of woman has been negated now. There is no definition… right? So we can just end women’s athletics. After all, it doesn’t mean anything.

And that's the discussion - these organizations need to stop making women irrelevant. Within the realm of a competitive sport, where biology matters and not gender, that's the crux of the matter.

Aaron747 wrote:

where biology matters and not gender.

We've redefined gender in my short lifetime. We mind as well redefine biology.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

where biology matters and not gender.

We've redefined gender in my short lifetime. We mind as well redefine biology.

We have redefined biology based on science, not gender based on science.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The whole thing is pretty dumb. I don’t find gender relevant for most things in life. At my work, it is irrelevant. School, also irrelevant. If people want to negate the definition of women’s sports, go for it. A man can jump farther than a woman, so we can just bring women’s long jump to a conclusion, for example. Instead, there will be a human long jump competition. The humans who win will be traditionally understood to be men, with traditional male biology that causes a huge change in performance. I guess someday, we will never eve remember when women competed in athletics. Just my tangent on this topic. Provided free of charge, and worth exactly that.

It's dumb because organizations that presume to be taken seriously regarding 'preservation' of their sport (which are all just games invented to keep us from getting bored) are fouling everything up by not taking their own responsibilities seriously. These are salaried positions at NCAA and elsewhere, so it's the incompetence that is most annoying.

Men’s athletics will really not be affected by this. The question is about whether we need women’s athletics. The whole idea of women’s athletics is to provide a venue for athletic women and not men. In my view the NCAA has a responsibility to maintain venues for women compete, without competing against XY biological men. But I guess the definition of woman has been negated now. There is no definition… right? So we can just end women’s athletics. After all, it doesn’t mean anything.

I grew up in a different time and the same ideological place. Far right wing extremist anti-science, anti-person, do as I say, not as I do type. I really loved volleyball. It spoke to me more than football or basketball or baseball. Volleyball I just got. They were athletes. Not just women with big knockers and short shorts and look at the skin (remember how upset people were they didn't want to wear bikinis?) but they were doing everything in their power to be the best of the best. I really wanted to be a part of that. In high school, I found out that, in California, men played volleyball, too. I had a conference with the school volleyball coach and asked if we could have a boy's volleyball team and her response was "no one in the state is interested and we don't have the funds and we barely have the funds for us."

I think we have women's athletics because "let's just throw them a bone". Which is sad because we have some really great athletes out there of every gender. But, in a male dominated society, we can't show women can be as good as hetero cis-men, I guess?

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting someone can’t live their life how they choose is missing the point. I can’t life my life as a billionaire because I am not one, if you your sex is male you shouldn’t be able to compete as female sex, because you aren’t.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The unfortunate result of decades of misguidedly sidelining basic biology and physiology in pursuit of gender equality. The culmination has been it becoming taboo to even intimate that there are science-based differences between the sexes.

flyguy89 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting someone can’t live their life how they choose is missing the point. I can’t life my life as a billionaire because I am not one, if you your sex is male you shouldn’t be able to compete as female sex, because you aren’t.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The unfortunate result of decades of misguidedly sidelining basic biology and physiology in pursuit of gender equality. The culmination has been it becoming taboo to even intimate that there are science-based differences between the sexes.

But that's not the topic. There are a small group of humans who were born the wrong gender. That is science. It happens. When did this female athlete start her transition? According to some, she never started it and is a "failed male" athlete. Yes, there is a difference between man and woman. And there is a difference between cis and trans. It is completely forbidden from discussing the difference between cis and trans because that upsets certain people. They don't even seem to want cis gender equality.

This is simply push-back for demands for equality from LGBTQ people. This group of upset people don't want to treat trans people equally, it seems to me. I know I will now get "yes we do but treat them like they should be" which means how cis hetero people are comfortable. I hear all this talk about equality and patriotism but it looks like that only applies to a very specific group of people who fall in line and check all the boxes.

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting someone can’t live their life how they choose is missing the point. I can’t life my life as a billionaire because I am not one, if you your sex is male you shouldn’t be able to compete as female sex, because you aren’t.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The unfortunate result of decades of misguidedly sidelining basic biology and physiology in pursuit of gender equality. The culmination has been it becoming taboo to even intimate that there are science-based differences between the sexes.

But that's not the topic. There are a small group of humans who were born the wrong gender. That is science. It happens. When did this female athlete start her transition? According to some, she never started it and is a "failed male" athlete. Yes, there is a difference between man and woman. And there is a difference between cis and trans. It is completely forbidden from discussing the difference between cis and trans because that upsets certain people. They don't even seem to want cis gender equality.

This is simply push-back for demands for equality from LGBTQ people. This group of upset people don't want to treat trans people equally, it seems to me. I know I will now get "yes we do but treat them like they should be" which means how cis hetero people are comfortable. I hear all this talk about equality and patriotism but it looks like that only applies to a very specific group of people who fall in line and check all the boxes.

Why does the difference between cis and trans matter in this context when the major determining factor in athletic performance and the reason they are categorised in such a way is sex.

In many sports there are additional determinative factors, particularly weight (contact sports and weight lifting) and as such these sports are categorised in this way.

In some sorts the there are no categories and all participants compete together (equestrian sports).

Until gender shows the same/similar levels of effect on outcomes of athletic performance then I see no reason why it should be used as way of categorising athletes.

Should one be able to self identify as having lost a leg and so be able to compete in The Paralympics?

Or should someone be able to self identify as being a lighter weight and compete in a different weight lifting category? I guarantee you these people are in higher numbers and transgender, I see them every Saturday night (also pretending they are younger than they really are too).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting someone can’t live their life how they choose is missing the point. I can’t life my life as a billionaire because I am not one, if you your sex is male you shouldn’t be able to compete as female sex, because you aren’t.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The unfortunate result of decades of misguidedly sidelining basic biology and physiology in pursuit of gender equality. The culmination has been it becoming taboo to even intimate that there are science-based differences between the sexes.

But that's not the topic.

Absolutely related to the topic at hand when you have an organization presiding over women’s athletics…a body existing specifically to allow female sexed athletes to fairly compete, ostensibly ignoring the science-based biological differences between the sexes.

seb146 wrote:

There are a small group of humans who were born the wrong gender. That is science. It happens. When did this female athlete start her transition? According to some, she never started it and is a "failed male" athlete. Yes, there is a difference between man and woman. And there is a difference between cis and trans. It is completely forbidden from discussing the difference between cis and trans because that upsets certain people. They don't even seem to want cis gender equality.

This is simply push-back for demands for equality from LGBTQ people. This group of upset people don't want to treat trans people equally, it seems to me. I know I will now get "yes we do but treat them like they should be" which means how cis hetero people are comfortable. I hear all this talk about equality and patriotism but it looks like that only applies to a very specific group of people who fall in line and check all the boxes.

Stop overreaching. I think we all understand by now your thoughts on the US political left vs. right dichotomy. Fact is, it’s not fair to have trans female athletes competing against cis female athletes. Full stop. And if you’re obfuscating on acknowledging that because you want to “own the righties,” you’re just wrong.

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting someone can’t live their life how they choose is missing the point. I can’t life my life as a billionaire because I am not one, if you your sex is male you shouldn’t be able to compete as female sex, because you aren’t.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The unfortunate result of decades of misguidedly sidelining basic biology and physiology in pursuit of gender equality. The culmination has been it becoming taboo to even intimate that there are science-based differences between the sexes.

But that's not the topic. There are a small group of humans who were born the wrong gender. That is science. It happens. When did this female athlete start her transition? According to some, she never started it and is a "failed male" athlete. Yes, there is a difference between man and woman. And there is a difference between cis and trans. It is completely forbidden from discussing the difference between cis and trans because that upsets certain people. They don't even seem to want cis gender equality.

This is simply push-back for demands for equality from LGBTQ people. This group of upset people don't want to treat trans people equally, it seems to me. I know I will now get "yes we do but treat them like they should be" which means how cis hetero people are comfortable. I hear all this talk about equality and patriotism but it looks like that only applies to a very specific group of people who fall in line and check all the boxes.

Negative - this is not pushback on equality demands. Au contraire, the whole problem with Lia’s story is that it’s a step back for the women involved in the story where more reasonable remedies are possible but untried.

It should be possible to treat trans people with dignity without pretending real biological distinctions in venues like sport don’t exist.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

where biology matters and not gender.

We've redefined gender in my short lifetime. We mind as well redefine biology.

There are evidence-based psychosocial reasons for redefining gender. There is no need to flippantly change biology without scientific basis. If activists want to conflate the two, that’s up to them, but they will only undermine themselves by glancing over the nuances between them.

seb146 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

where biology matters and not gender.

We've redefined gender in my short lifetime. We mind as well redefine biology.

We have redefined biology based on science, not gender based on science.

And the science still firmly states biology is fixed, it does not change if you change your gender. Transwomen do no need pap smear tests they need there prostate checked, that will never change.

seb146 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I don't know what the short-term fix is, but the long-term fix is education, which some people simply do not want.

How is education going to help female athletes compete against biological men? Because that's the topic of this thread. If LBGT activists want to be taken seriously then they should just concede that this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

When a person is on hormone replacement, they are taking doses of a hormone. It is used, also, for menopausal women.

Again: the "problem" that needs to be fixed is education. To teach people that there are people out there who are not the biology they were born with. Several peer-reviewed papers have been written on this very subject.

From what little I understand it isn't just a biological issue but also an emotional issue. How you think about what sex you are and how comfortable you are with your sexuality is part and parcel of it. There probably are also bisexual people (who prefer both men and women as sexual partners) that may add to the confusion. For every trans person, he/she/they are on a journey for discovery and even sex-change operation is not trivial. It is expensive and, I think in this thread itself as well as other places on the web, have read about people who did undergo a sex-change operation but were disappointed with the results. And some people might be ok with being trans itself, they don't find the need to be one or the other sex. That is the reason they have a rainbow as their motif/symbol so that diversity can be appreciated. As I shared before, it would be a non-issue if trans people should have a competition all of their own. That needs to be legitimized. Till that doesn't happen, you will see the issues like above. I think another thing people don't understand is trans people also want to be recognized. Part of it I think is also about representation.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

We've redefined gender in my short lifetime. We mind as well redefine biology.

We have redefined biology based on science, not gender based on science.

And the science still firmly states biology is fixed, it does not change if you change your gender. Transwomen do no need pap smear tests they need there prostate checked, that will never change.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

pune wrote:

seb146 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

How is education going to help female athletes compete against biological men? Because that's the topic of this thread. If LBGT activists want to be taken seriously then they should just concede that this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

When a person is on hormone replacement, they are taking doses of a hormone. It is used, also, for menopausal women.

Again: the "problem" that needs to be fixed is education. To teach people that there are people out there who are not the biology they were born with. Several peer-reviewed papers have been written on this very subject.

From what little I understand it isn't just a biological issue but also an emotional issue. How you think about what sex you are and how comfortable you are with your sexuality is part and parcel of it. There probably are also bisexual people (who prefer both men and women as sexual partners) that may add to the confusion. For every trans person, he/she/they are on a journey for discovery and even sex-change operation is not trivial. It is expensive and, I think in this thread itself as well as other places on the web, have read about people who did undergo a sex-change operation but were disappointed with the results. And some people might be ok with being trans itself, they don't find the need to be one or the other sex. That is the reason they have a rainbow as their motif/symbol so that diversity can be appreciated. As I shared before, it would be a non-issue if trans people should have a competition all of their own. That needs to be legitimized. Till that doesn't happen, you will see the issues like above. I think another thing people don't understand is trans people also want to be recognized. Part of it I think is also about representation.

Separate but equal does not work. See: America until the 1970s. Yes, trans people do want equality. Just like Blacks still want equality, gays still want equality, Muslims still want equality, etc. Maybe have a gender neutral competition? Remove all barriers?

seb146 wrote:

pune wrote:

seb146 wrote:

When a person is on hormone replacement, they are taking doses of a hormone. It is used, also, for menopausal women.

Again: the "problem" that needs to be fixed is education. To teach people that there are people out there who are not the biology they were born with. Several peer-reviewed papers have been written on this very subject.

From what little I understand it isn't just a biological issue but also an emotional issue. How you think about what sex you are and how comfortable you are with your sexuality is part and parcel of it. There probably are also bisexual people (who prefer both men and women as sexual partners) that may add to the confusion. For every trans person, he/she/they are on a journey for discovery and even sex-change operation is not trivial. It is expensive and, I think in this thread itself as well as other places on the web, have read about people who did undergo a sex-change operation but were disappointed with the results. And some people might be ok with being trans itself, they don't find the need to be one or the other sex. That is the reason they have a rainbow as their motif/symbol so that diversity can be appreciated. As I shared before, it would be a non-issue if trans people should have a competition all of their own. That needs to be legitimized. Till that doesn't happen, you will see the issues like above. I think another thing people don't understand is trans people also want to be recognized. Part of it I think is also about representation.

Separate but equal does not work. See: America until the 1970s. Yes, trans people do want equality. Just like Blacks still want equality, gays still want equality, Muslims still want equality, etc. Maybe have a gender neutral competition? Remove all barriers?

Agreed, gender neutral, not sex neutral.

Male sex compete against other males of every gender. Female sex compete against other females of every gender.
Simples! Not sure why it’s so difficult to understand.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

pune wrote:

From what little I understand it isn't just a biological issue but also an emotional issue. How you think about what sex you are and how comfortable you are with your sexuality is part and parcel of it. There probably are also bisexual people (who prefer both men and women as sexual partners) that may add to the confusion. For every trans person, he/she/they are on a journey for discovery and even sex-change operation is not trivial. It is expensive and, I think in this thread itself as well as other places on the web, have read about people who did undergo a sex-change operation but were disappointed with the results. And some people might be ok with being trans itself, they don't find the need to be one or the other sex. That is the reason they have a rainbow as their motif/symbol so that diversity can be appreciated. As I shared before, it would be a non-issue if trans people should have a competition all of their own. That needs to be legitimized. Till that doesn't happen, you will see the issues like above. I think another thing people don't understand is trans people also want to be recognized. Part of it I think is also about representation.

Separate but equal does not work. See: America until the 1970s. Yes, trans people do want equality. Just like Blacks still want equality, gays still want equality, Muslims still want equality, etc. Maybe have a gender-neutral competition? Remove all barriers?

Agreed, gender-neutral, not sex-neutral.

The male sex competes against other males of every gender. The female sex competes against other females of every gender.
Simples! Not sure why it’s so difficult to understand.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because you are trying to make it simple. For e.g. in Star Trek: Discovery Adira and their friend became the first transgender characters. Both of them in the series haven't made any choice on what they are. The point is why cannot have competitions just for them. And what you are not getting is that everybody does not want to make a choice for any number of reasons and they shouldn't have to.

https://intl.startrek.com/news/star-tre ... characters

In my life I did come across few people like that

pune wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Separate but equal does not work. See: America until the 1970s. Yes, trans people do want equality. Just like Blacks still want equality, gays still want equality, Muslims still want equality, etc. Maybe have a gender-neutral competition? Remove all barriers?

Agreed, gender-neutral, not sex-neutral.

The male sex competes against other males of every gender. The female sex competes against other females of every gender.
Simples! Not sure why it’s so difficult to understand.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because you are trying to make it simple. For e.g. in Star Trek: Discovery Adira and their friend became the first transgender characters. Both of them in the series haven't made any choice on what they are. The point is why cannot have competitions just for them. And what you are not getting is that everybody does not want to make a choice for any number of reasons and they shouldn't have to.

https://intl.startrek.com/news/star-tre ... characters

In my life I did come across few people like that

That’s because it is simple. Sex is a significant driver in athletic performance in many sports, gender has, as far as I’m aware, not been shown to have the same effect.

If gender can be shown to have the same impact then that too could be a driver for categorisation like weight in boxing but until this could be shown there would be no reason to change.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

That’s because it is simple. Sex is a significant driver in athletic performance in many sports, gender has, as far as I’m aware, not been shown to have the same effect.

If gender can be shown to have the same impact then that too could be a driver for categorisation like weight in boxing but until this could be shown there would be no reason to change.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly. You can choose to identify however you want, and that’s great. Be who you want to be. But that doesn’t change your birth sex. And that determines a lot of physical attributes.

Solution idea for these top tier competitions- If you finish the race in/or under x seconds, you go in category 1, and so on for however many categories or time groups you need. Regardless of gender/sex, your time dictates who you race. Problem there is that none of the top winners will ever be women/females. But if you want to be all inclusive and open, go all in.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We have redefined biology based on science, not gender based on science.

And the science still firmly states biology is fixed, it does not change if you change your gender. Transwomen do no need pap smear tests they need there prostate checked, that will never change.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

And the science still firmly states biology is fixed, it does not change if you change your gender. Transwomen do no need pap smear tests they need there prostate checked, that will never change.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

I think one part is what one is born with. Fr e.g. Kenyans and Ethiopians have had the best marathon runners for a long time. The same way a male or a female may be born in the other body or may have mixed characteristics. If we don't penalize Ethiopians or Kenyans as they have certain characteristics that make them ideal for long-term running/swimming etc. then we can't penalize them the same.

https://www.runnerstribe.com/news/the-g ... -all-time/

pune wrote:

If we don't penalize Ethiopians or Kenyans as they have certain characteristics that make them ideal for long-term running/swimming etc. then we can't penalize them the same.

https://www.runnerstribe.com/news/the-g ... -all-time/

There is no scientific basis for Kenyans and Ethiopians having inherent or immutable advantages to running.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

If we don't penalize Ethiopians or Kenyans as they have certain characteristics that make them ideal for long-term running/swimming etc. then we can't penalize them the same.

https://www.runnerstribe.com/news/the-g ... -all-time/

There is no scientific basis for Kenyans and Ethiopians having inherent or immutable advantages to running.

You may be right but somehow at least for a decade or more I have seen people from those countries coming in the top three and even if they represent other countries, it is mostly people of African descent who usually win the trophies. I have read many fictional and non-fictional stories that seem to suggest that over centuries they have somehow become more adapted to it. Assegai, as an example, tells quite a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assegai_(novel)

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

If we don't penalize Ethiopians or Kenyans as they have certain characteristics that make them ideal for long-term running/swimming etc. then we can't penalize them the same.

https://www.runnerstribe.com/news/the-g ... -all-time/

There is no scientific basis for Kenyans and Ethiopians having inherent or immutable advantages to running.

You may be right but somehow at least for a decade or more I have seen people from those countries coming in the top three and even if they represent other countries, it is mostly people of African descent who usually win the trophies. I have read many fictional and non-fictional stories that seem to suggest that over centuries they have somehow become more adapted to it. Assegai, as an example, tells quite a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assegai_(novel)

There are certainly some populations of people who have specific cardiovascular adaptations to high altitude and other demanding environments - the Masai in Kenya, Peruvian Quechua, and Nepali Sherpas certainly come to mind, but that does not automatically mean all people from those countries have an athletic superiority or advantage.

NIKV69 wrote:

How do you know they are horrible people?

Because you obviously do not care about this or any other sports for that matter. You are simply looking for another stick to bash Transfolk with and have not begun to understand the complexities at play here. That makes my conclusion accurate and obvious.

And that is why neither myself nor any decent person can contribute to that general meme, however rife with genuine conflict the issue might be.

You needed that explained to you.

flyguy89 wrote:

There’s absolutely no doubt that the vast majority, left and right, find the notion of M2F trans athletes fairly competing with CIS female athletes absurd. The right decries it for obvious reasons, but the Left won’t do a thing about it for fear of being lumped with the right or just generally being deplatformed and shamed by the activist crowd. Thus it’ll remain a partisan issue until either the trans community itself reigns this in, or the institution of gendered sports faces imminent collapse.

And that is a real problem. The right have gone out of their way to make it a partisan issue —as they often do with science related things. It is to the point where Americans do not want to touch this for fear not of being cancelled, but of being seen to approve of the right's increasingly hostile and absurd social agendas.

There is, of course, no solution to this or like matters. It will have to be handled at the level of whichever sport commission happens to be overseeing a given case as this is not a governmental issue. And that, given the fundamentally capitalist nature of these things, will rely on whichever demographic is paying the most advert revenue.

Aaron747 wrote:

I hope as a society reasonable people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Reasonable people can, yes. But again, this a huge dogwhistle for people who cannot spell reasonable, leave alone act the part. As I mentioned above, there will not be a solution to this so long as the usual suspects chose to involve themselves.

Reasonable would be opening up a trans category. Do you sincerely imagine support for that coming from our right leaning posters here? Expand that microcosm and it is clear where the problem is.

afcjets wrote:

IMO the difference between the left and the right is the right will defend your individual right to play (and speak) make believe however you like.

Islam, homosexuals interested in equality, citizens against police brutality and Americans in support of due process would like a word with you.

The right have consistently been culpable in every matter involving the delay or denial of Civil Rights and expression.

pune wrote:

You may be right but somehow at least for a decade or more I have seen people from those countries coming in the top three and even if they represent other countries, it is mostly people of African descent who usually win the trophies. I have read many fictional and non-fictional stories that seem to suggest that over centuries they have somehow become more adapted to it. Assegai, as an example, tells quite a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assegai_(novel)

That would more likely be owing to the relatively high altitude of those regions. But if we wanted to take that as read, how do those differences compare to M v F? I am willing to wager not as much.

Aaron747 wrote:

There are certainly some populations of people who have specific cardiovascular adaptations to high altitude and other demanding environments - the Masai in Kenya, Peruvian Quechua, and Nepali Sherpas certainly come to mind, but that does not automatically mean all people from those countries have an athletic superiority or advantage.

Right, and while those differences are real, I do doubt they compare to M v F. A notable example is something as simple as baseline BP being different for the sexes. That actually does effect the ways workouts can be done most effectively.

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

I think one part is what one is born with. Fr e.g. Kenyans and Ethiopians have had the best marathon runners for a long time. The same way a male or a female may be born in the other body or may have mixed characteristics. If we don't penalize Ethiopians or Kenyans as they have certain characteristics that make them ideal for long-term running/swimming etc. then we can't penalize them the same.

https://www.runnerstribe.com/news/the-g ... -all-time/

Paula Radcliffe was the WR holder from 2002 until 2017, during that time she broke her own record 3 times, guess where she didn’t come from.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is to the point where Americans do not want to touch this for fear not of being cancelled, but of being seen to approve of the right's increasingly hostile and absurd social agendas.

I do however think you’re underplaying just how unhinged trans discourse has become on the far left.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

There is, of course, no solution to this or like matters.

The solution is in fact pretty evident. Male sexed athletes cannot fairly compete with female sexed athletes in sanctioned women’s sports. Nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is to the point where Americans do not want to touch this for fear not of being cancelled, but of being seen to approve of the right's increasingly hostile and absurd social agendas.

I do however think you’re underplaying just how unhinged trans discourse has become on the far left.

Because there is not an unhinged to underplay. Fratricidal would be a more accurate term, as there is a lot of lateral shooting in those spaces. This is unhealthy in its own regard and will be enough of a problem in due course. But it is not the same as the same as a right wing who would ignore or even support their' just being eliminated as a demographic altogether. To me, it is a huge concern that I not help that process.

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

There is, of course, no solution to this or like matters.

The solution is in fact pretty evident. Male sexed athletes cannot fairly compete with female sexed athletes in sanctioned women’s sports. Nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

I understand this. But again, that is entirely within the realm of private sector. And the demographic tide supporting most of that sees things largely as I do, which by admission, makes the overall situation somewhat intractable. Outside of the right wing, no one wants their signature on something that makes things harder for the Trans community. Performative as that may be...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is to the point where Americans do not want to touch this for fear not of being cancelled, but of being seen to approve of the right's increasingly hostile and absurd social agendas.

I do however think you’re underplaying just how unhinged trans discourse has become on the far left.

Because there is not an unhinged to underplay. Fratricidal would be a more accurate term, as there is a lot of lateral shooting in those spaces. This is unhealthy in its own regard and will be enough of a problem in due course. But it is not the same as the same as a right wing who would ignore or even support their' just being eliminated as a demographic altogether. To me, it is a huge concern that I not help that process.

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

There is, of course, no solution to this or like matters.

The solution is in fact pretty evident. Male sexed athletes cannot fairly compete with female sexed athletes in sanctioned women’s sports. Nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

I understand this. But again, that is entirely within the realm of private sector. And the demographic tide supporting most of that sees things largely as I do, which by admission, makes the overall situation somewhat intractable. Outside of the right wing, no one wants their signature on something that makes things harder for the Trans community. Performative as that may be...

That's something the right wing is still pretty misguided about when they criticize these corporate takes on social issues. It's not so much that companies *care* about these issues - though there may be individual employees who are very outspoken, that's beside the point. It's *bad business* to piss off whole categories of people, particularly urban dwellers with $$$, and it's usually as simple as that.

Aaron747 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

I do however think you’re underplaying just how unhinged trans discourse has become on the far left.

Because there is not an unhinged to underplay. Fratricidal would be a more accurate term, as there is a lot of lateral shooting in those spaces. This is unhealthy in its own regard and will be enough of a problem in due course. But it is not the same as the right-wing who would ignore or even support their' just being eliminated as a demographic altogether. To me, it is a huge concern that I do not help that process.

flyguy89 wrote:

The solution is in fact pretty evident. Male sexed athletes cannot fairly compete with female sexed athletes in sanctioned women’s sports. Nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

I understand this. But again, that is entirely within the realm of the private sector. And the demographic tide supporting most of that sees things largely as I do, which by admission, makes the overall situation somewhat intractable. Outside of the right-wing, no one wants their signature on something that makes things harder for the Trans community. Performative as that may be...

That's something the right-wing is still pretty misguided about when they criticize these corporate takes on social issues. It's not so much that companies *care* about these issues - though there may be individual employees who are very outspoken, that's beside the point. It's *bad business* to piss off whole categories of people, particularly urban dwellers with $$$, and it's usually as simple as that.

On the money, but these are first-world problems as people at least admit there is some problem. Where I come from, India, we don't even recognize trans people as legal entities having their own civil rights. I know of at least a dozen-odd cases both in the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court (SC) where no judge wants to take any sort of call and these cases have been hanging there for a decade or two. Sadly, India has a long way to go. In India's defense, It is only 3 years ago, that SC ruled homosexuality is not a crime and this is after half a century of ruling the opposite -

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/india-hi ... 7b003c822c

We just have had a couple of movies that showed a couple in a homosexual and lesbian relationships -

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11934846/? ... flmg_act_6

Would take a long time to come where your countries are

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Because there is not an unhinged to underplay. Fratricidal would be a more accurate term

Fratricide is unhinged.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

To me, it is a huge concern that I not help that process.

It’s something one can be concerned about while not precluding speaking out against something that is also clearly harmful to another minority group.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

And the demographic tide supporting most of that sees things largely as I do, which by admission, makes the overall situation somewhat intractable.

The notion that male sexed athletes can fairly compete against female sexed athletes is by far not the mainstream take. That’s precisely the irony in all of this that there is no “demographic tide” or alignment based on the science underpinning that stance.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

And the science still firmly states biology is fixed, it does not change if you change your gender. Transwomen do no need pap smear tests they need there prostate checked, that will never change.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Are you absolutely sure about that?

https://blog.apicha.org/what-to-know-ab ... l%20cancer.

Depending on how invasive the bottom surgery is, they could still need these checks. Oh, and breast cancer happens in both genders, regardless of how they identify and present. Cis men do get breast cancer, so let's just don't even start with that.

Ifs/ands/buts are well beyond the basic biological reality. And nobody was talking about cancers that affect both sexes, that's completely immaterial to the discussion. As you may remember, the discussion is about differences in cardiovascular capacity and therefore athletic ability for swimmers. That will not change via anything you have mentioned - the biology remains the same.

Rob was talking about pap smears which is a test for cervical cancer.

Every person is built different. Some people are lean and large, some people are lean and small. Some people build themselves for swimming, some people build themselves for hockey. Look at the build and speed of Bonnie Blair, Olympic medal speed skater. How do we know she is not trans? She was consistently blowing everyone away.

Are you suggesting removing all sex categorisation from sport?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk