(CNN) -- A transgender woman prohibited from competing in a strength competition as a female is suing the fitness company sponsoring the competition, seeking $2.5 million in damages.
Chloie Jonnson, a personal trainer, charges the CrossFit company with discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress and unfair competition in a lawsuit filed Thursday in Santa Cruz, California.
While her lawyer calls it a case of discrimination against transgender people, CrossFit's lawyer calls it protecting the competition.
Last year, Jonnson sought to compete in the CrossFit Games, a contest aimed at determining the fittest man and woman.
According to the lawsuit, Jonnson has identified herself as a female since her teenage years and is legally recognized by California as a woman. She had sexual reassignment surgery in 2006 and has been on female hormone therapy, according to her lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that a CrossFit teammate of Jonnson's sent an anonymous e-mail to the games organizers asking about transgender athletes in the competition. CrossFit determined that competitors in the event had to compete in the gender of their birth.
Jonnson disagreed with its decision and the dispute has escalated to a lawsuit.
Transgender woman barred from restroom Jesuits honor murdered transgender woman Transgender Victoria's Secret Angel? Transgender woman barred from restroom
CrossFit maintains that Jonnson was born as a male, so she should compete in the men's division, according to a letter from the company's lawyer to Jonnson's attorney. It also stated that the company had an "obligation to protect the 'rights' of all competitors and the competition itself."
"The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women," according to the letter from CrossFit's lawyer sent in October.
CNN reached out to CrossFit but did not get a response on Thursday. The letter from CrossFit was provided to CNN by Jonnson's attorney, Waukeen McCoy, who blasted the company's decision.
"(Jonnson) doesn't have an advantage over other women. She's been on estrogen for such a long time," he said about his client.
Hormone replacement therapy for transgender women includes anti-androgen therapy, which nullifies the effects of testosterone to reduce the masculine features of the body. Therapies can also consist of the hormones, estrogen and progesterone to feminize the body.
Transgender men receive the opposite types of hormones -- mainly testosterone to masculinze their bodies with features such as increased muscle and hair growth.
McCoy said that CrossFit should change its rules to be more like the International Olympic Committee, which allows transgender athletes to compete in their identified gender after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery.
"She's female," McCoy said about Jonnson. "She's legally female. A corporation like CrossFit, they're doing business in California. The law precludes from discrimination on gender identity."
He said Jonnson seeks a reversal in the competition's policy.
The lawsuit also alleges that CrossFit's policy of having to compete in a person's original birth gender, would require that transgender athletes would have to reveal their personal histories. In essence, that they'd have to "out" themselves, even if they sought privacy, the lawsuit alleges.
After her sexual reassignment surgery, Jonnson changed all her records to reflect her sex change to female, including her birth certificate, according to her lawsuit. Jonnson kept her background a secret and did not identify herself as transgender, according to the complaint.
In a press release statement, Jonnson said: "If I am going to be forced to out myself, I want it to be for the good for all transgendered people and athletes -- not because of a company's discriminatory policies."
I know one transgender person, who was born a male, served in the Army as a male, fathered a child as a male. Now a woman. Except all those muscles, and everything that would affect their physical performance were due to the physical development as a male.
Is there any research into the issue of post op competitors? I mean, if a transwoman has had her testoserone nullified, is there any evidence that's been collected to determine her parity in competition with genetically born women?
Breotan wrote: The Olympics wouldn't let him compete as a woman.
Actually, since May 17th 2004, they would if the Transgender athlete in question had met three criteria.
1. They must have had gender reassignment surgery
2. They must have legal recognition of their assigned gender
3. They must have at least two years of hormone therapy
So looking at the case, she would be able to compete in the Olympics, so I can see her winning this one.
Sorry, I'm probably a bigot but if you swap bitz you compete against your starting point.
It would be interesting to see any studies they do though. Especially of the converse of a female, turned into a man, and taking testoterone and bulking up and competing with women.
Can’t say I agree with this. If someone want to undergo a cosmetic change and live as a woman then that is their prerogative but it doesn’t alter the fact that despite all the surgery and hormones they still have the basic biology of a man.
No. Just no. I could rant about this, but that would only offend someone. It's sufficient to say anyone born as a male will have a significant advantage over most women in any physical contest involving strength, speed, endurance, or jumping ability.
Edit: Clarification for the Kronkites of the world.
trexmeyer wrote: No. Just no. I could rant about this, but that would only offend someone. It's sufficient to say anyone born as a male will have a significant advantage over most women in any physical contest.
Except childbirth. Women with that physical contest every time.
See Also: Looking good in a bikini and remembering gak you did 5 years ago.
Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered. And believe it or not. Those men going under hormone therapy are actually loosing muscles.
I'm going to bring a tiger to a horse race and if they deny me a spot in the race I'm going to sue.
Also, when I start uni I'm going to show up naked and sit in the birdbath before class begins instead of taking my morning shower. If anybody says anything to me I'll file harassment charges. I am a bird and it doesn't matter what my physiology is because I know I'm a bird on the inside. Deal with it bigots.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered.
Not all discrimination is unlawful or ethically wrong. You are allowed to impinge on people's freedoms if you have a compelling, reasonable reason for doing so. For example, if your religion required you to have a beard, but your job as a scuba diver required you to wear an oxygen mask as a requirement to do your job, your religious practice is trumped by the job's requirement for your oxygen mask to have a tight fit. If you wear a crucifix, your job could prevent you from doing so if there was a machine it could reasonably be caught in, or if you couldn't have metal in an area like for an MRI or whatever.
That's the legalistic definition. Morally, everyone needs to decide for themselves but for myself, I think the rationale for preventing a mtf trans woman from competing is both reasonable and compelling. I got into this exact argument with a transgender friend and she disagreed with me, but that is where I am.
ZultanQ wrote: I'm going to bring a tiger to a horse race and if they deny me a spot in the race I'm going to sue.
Also, when I start uni I'm going to show up naked and sit in the birdbath before class begins instead of taking my morning shower. If anybody says anything to me I'll file harassment charges. I am a bird and it doesn't matter what my physiology is because I know I'm a bird on the inside. Deal with it bigots.
/trans"logic"
1: Having a Tiger is illegal They are dangerous
2: You are naked in public, that is the problem.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered.
Not all discrimination is unlawful or ethically wrong. You are allowed to impinge on people's freedoms if you have a compelling, reasonable reason for doing so. For example, if your religion required you to have a beard, but your job as a scuba diver required you to wear an oxygen mask as a requirement to do your job, your religious practice is trumped by the job's requirement for your oxygen mask to have a tight fit. If you wear a crucifix, your job could prevent you from doing so if there was a machine it could reasonably be caught in, or if you couldn't have metal in an area like for an MRI or whatever.
That's the legalistic definition. Morally, everyone needs to decide for themselves but for myself, I think the rationale for preventing a mtf trans woman from competing is both reasonable and compelling. I got into this exact argument with a transgender friend and she disagreed with me, but that is where I am.
Well, if you knew that your job required those things of you, why would you apply to them in the first place?
I am saying it is bigoted because estrogen and anti-androgen strip away male features and muscle mass. I have seen it ad it leaves them weaker then the average male
I see two easy and fair solution.
- Create a third category (fourth ? fifth ?) for transgender, and pit them against one another, or
- Remove all categories. You compete regardless of gender.
The only thing I really take offense to in this thread is that folks are referring to the surgery as a 'cosmestic' change. That cannot be farther from the truth for transgender.
LuciusAR wrote:Can’t say I agree with this. If someone want to undergo a cosmetic change and live as a woman then that is their prerogative but it doesn’t alter the fact that despite all the surgery and hormones they still have the basic biology of a man.
It's not a cosmetic change. The main difference between a man and a woman isn't "Oh, they have different genes" it's that those genes cause the expression of different hormones. If you artificially replace those hormones, it has (largely) the same effect as switching the genes, meaning that because this woman has been under hormone therapy for the past eight years, she is (apart from on a genetic level, and for some physiological changes that occur prior to puberty, such as hip width) a woman.
trexmeyer wrote:No. Just no. I could rant about this, but that would only offend someone. It's sufficient to say anyone born as a male will have a significant advantage over most women in any physical contest involving strength, speed, endurance, or jumping ability.
Too late, already angry, mainly because you're wrong.
Apart from the upwards of 8 years on hormone therapy that ensures that any meaningful advantage she may previously have had have been nullified; There's also the fact that your use of "anyone born as a male" is ludicrously broad. I can't imagine Stephen Hawking beating any woman in an arm wrestle.
Breotan wrote:The Olympics wouldn't let him compete as a woman.
Her. They, according to you (incorrectly, by the way, as she meets the standards to compete as a woman), wouldn't let HER compete as a woman.
ZultanQ wrote: I'm going to bring a tiger to a horse race and if they deny me a spot in the race I'm going to sue.
Also, when I start uni I'm going to show up naked and sit in the birdbath before class begins instead of taking my morning shower. If anybody says anything to me I'll file harassment charges. I am a bird and it doesn't matter what my physiology is because I know I'm a bird on the inside. Deal with it bigots.
/trans"logic"
Except that's utterly ridiculous and you're the one in this situation that's not using any form of logic.
For one because a tiger would be utterly useless in a horse race, as horses are a lot faster than tigers.
For another because your proposed university situation doesn't involve you having spent the past 8 or more years on bird hormones and undergoing large amounts of surgery to make you a bird physically, nor are you legally recognised as a bird. ALL of which the lady in the article has been through (were she a bird rather than a woman)
I'm really conflicted on trans acceptance. The evidence seems to indicate that people that undergo gender reassignement are happier and healthier then those that feel trans but don't. It seems that for whatever reason, mind and body don't quite match up, and people simply are a different gender then their biological sex. You can argue that, but you'd be wrong. It "feels" wrong, but isn't.
Still, while I'm down for allowing a person to be whatever gender they wish, I do think there are some times when an entity can refuse to accept that. I think it come down to if there is a reason it would be unfair to others. I don't know about transfemale athletes and their advantages. I'd guess they'd be a bit stronger, but that's a WAG.
It's an important discussion, and not an easy one.
I'm not entirely "anti-trans" or whatever you call it. I recognize that there are people who are diagnosed with gender identity disorder and have legitimate mental problems because of this. But that's all they are, mental problems, and not something to be celebrated. Who really wants to be transgender? If you are transgender, wouldn't you rather have just been born in your "correct" gender in the first place?
I actually agree with proponents of whatever this liberal hodgepodge ideology you call it is in the sense that I do believe society has misleading labels. But I don't dislike the labels, I dislike that they are too easily bent to whatever anybody wants them to mean. So fine, if you want to be a male or female, go ahead, because those things apparently mean "whatever I want them to mean" these days.
How we fix this is scrap "male" and "female" altogether in systems where biology actually matters like sports teams, public restrooms etc. We should have a concise word or phrase for biologically male and biologically female. "Bale" and "Fale" if you will, just throwing something out there. So now we have Bale sports teams and Fale sports teams so that these sports remain fair and don't become the targets of semantics abuse.
That's the legalistic definition. Morally, everyone needs to decide for themselves but for myself, I think the rationale for preventing a mtf trans woman from competing is both reasonable and compelling. I got into this exact argument with a transgender friend and she disagreed with me, but that is where I am.
It is an interesting issue. In my opinion, as CrossFit is a private entity, CrossFit should have the freedom to set its own standards regarding its competitions.
In fact, I call into question how CrossFit discovered she was originally a man, especially given that she does not, apparently, identify as trans.
ZultanQ wrote: I'm not entirely "anti-trans" or whatever you call it. I recognize that there are people who are diagnosed with gender identity disorder and have legitimate mental problems because of this. But that's all they are, mental problems, and not something to be celebrated. Who really wants to be transgender? If you are transgender, wouldn't you rather have just been born in your "correct" gender in the first place?
They do, which is why they undergo enormous expense to reassign their gender.
I actually agree with proponents of whatever this liberal hodgepodge ideology you call it is in the sense that I do believe society has misleading labels. But I don't dislike the labels, I dislike that they are too easily bent to whatever anybody wants them to mean. So fine, if you want to be a male or female, go ahead, because those things apparently mean "whatever I want them to mean" these days.
I'm not sure how a male saying "I want to be female" changes the societal meaning of either male or female.
How we fix this is scrap "male" and "female" altogether in systems where biology actually matters like sports teams, public restrooms etc. We should have a concise word or phrase for biologically male and biologically female. "Bale" and "Fale" if you will, just throwing something out there. So now we have Bale sports teams and Fale sports teams so that these sports remain fair and don't become the targets of semantics abuse.
Well, the term used is "Cis-gender," as opposed to "transgender." The term exists, I'm just not sure being explicitly discriminatory is preferable to semantic abuse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: It is an interesting issue. In my opinion, as CrossFit is a private entity, CrossFit should have the freedom to set its own standards regarding its competitions.
In fact, I call into question how CrossFit discovered she was originally a man, especially given that she does not, apparently, identify as trans.
Well, gender is a protected class, even more so in California. As always, private entities can discriminate until they can't.
And I believe she asked what the trans policy was, and was told they have to compete in their biological gender.
But there are phsycial differences that most certainly are NOT lost simply through a few years of taking hormone pills, to assert otherwise is the height of bad science.
last I checked with my two trans gender friends, they agree with me.
I have no problem with this athlete competing with other women. If she started hormone therapy in her teens there should be some significant changes to her physical development that are more in line with a female's development rather than a male's.
And if she meets the requirements to compete in the Olympics as a female, then CrossFit may need to re-examine their criteria for admitting transgender athletes.
Well, the term used is "Cis-gender," as opposed to "transgender." The term exists, I'm just not sure being explicitly discriminatory is preferable to semantic abuse.
Why is being explicitly discriminatory preferable to semantics abuse? Biological males and biological females are different and a person can easily discriminate the differences. What it sounds like is you are implying is that by recognizing the differences in biology between biological males and biological females, I am being "discriminatory" in a negative sense, or a bigot. I'm not, I'm simply suggesting that it necessary because biology matters. Biology itself is not bigotry, it's objective fact. Just because transpeople like to ignore objective facts doesn't mean everyone else should have to.
dogma wrote: It is an interesting issue. In my opinion, as CrossFit is a private entity, CrossFit should have the freedom to set its own standards regarding its competitions.
In fact, I call into question how CrossFit discovered she was originally a man, especially given that she does not, apparently, identify as trans.
Well, gender is a protected class, even more so in California. As always, private entities can discriminate until they can't.
And I believe she asked what the trans policy was, and was told they have to compete in their biological gender.
To quote the article:
The lawsuit alleges that a CrossFit teammate of Jonnson's sent an anonymous e-mail to the games organizers asking about transgender athletes in the competition. CrossFit determined that competitors in the event had to compete in the gender of their birth.
Jonnson disagreed with its decision and the dispute has escalated to a lawsuit.
It looks like she only revealed her gender after her friend received an e-mail back from CrossFit. I guess if they had allowed transgender athletes to compete in their new gender, she would never have revealed it.
But there are phsycial differences that most certainly are NOT lost simply through a few years of taking hormone pills, to assert otherwise is the height of bad science.
last I checked with my two trans gender friends, they agree with me.
I've been thinking about how I would draw the line, and here's my two part test:
1) Does introducing a trans individual infringe on the rights of others?
2) Is that infringement greater or less then denying a trans individual her identity?
IN this case, I feel that Crossfit has the right to a fair competition, as they determine it. Is being a transwoman an advantage over being a cis-woman? Probably. It certainly could be a strong advantage, as transwomen can easily increase their testosterone levels by tapering off other hormones. So there is likely an unavoidable passive advantage, and a possible active advantage.
Is the right to fair competition greater then the right to identity? Precedent says probably not. If a trans individual can compete in the Olympics fairly, it seems ludicrous to hold that a local Cross fit event would be irrevocably tainted. however, the IOC reserves the right to gender test, and outside of pretty strict parameters (surgery, two years of hormones, legal recognition) a trans individual must compete as per birth.
Well, the term used is "Cis-gender," as opposed to "transgender." The term exists, I'm just not sure being explicitly discriminatory is preferable to semantic abuse.
Why is being explicitly discriminatory preferable to semantics abuse? Biological males and biological females are different and a person can easily discriminate the differences. What it sounds like is you are implying is that by recognizing the differences in biology between biological males and biological females, I am being "discriminatory" in a negative sense, or a bigot. I'm not, I'm simply suggesting that it necessary because biology matters. Biology itself is not bigotry, it's objective fact. Just because transpeople like to ignore objective facts doesn't mean everyone else should have to.
Well, only allowing naturally born, or cis-women to appear on all women teams is discriminatory against transwomen, who are biologically pretty damn close to women.
And sure, biology matters. I"m not sure why it matters enough to discriminate on, but maybe you could give some reasons/examples of when it's important to know.
But there are phsycial differences that most certainly are NOT lost simply through a few years of taking hormone pills, to assert otherwise is the height of bad science.
last I checked with my two trans gender friends, they agree with me.
I've been thinking about how I would draw the line, and here's my two part test:
1) Does introducing a trans individual infringe on the rights of others?
2) Is that infringement greater or less then denying a trans individual her identity?
IN this case, I feel that Crossfit has the right to a fair competition, as they determine it. Is being a transwoman an advantage over being a cis-woman? Probably. It certainly could be a strong advantage, as transwomen can easily increase their testosterone levels by tapering off other hormones. So there is likely an unavoidable passive advantage, and a possible active advantage.
Is the right to fair competition greater then the right to identity? Precedent says probably not. If a trans individual can compete in the Olympics fairly, it seems ludicrous to hold that a local Cross fit event would be irrevocably tainted. however, the IOC reserves the right to gender test, and outside of pretty strict parameters (surgery, two years of hormones, legal recognition) a trans individual must compete as per birth.
"The right to identity", now there's something, lol. I don't know anybody who has the right to identity and I don't remember seeing anything about it in the US Constitution. This right to identity thing sounds like the right to be whatever you want to be, even if you're... not. So the fact that you admitted it infringes on competition, i.e. the fairness of the game, just makes it worse. I would argue that a person does not have the right to identity, and even if they do, their right to be whatever they want regardless of facts is trivial and shouldn't trump actual rights, such as a woman's right to feel safe without having 300lbs men with prison records use the same restroom as her because it's their "right to identity".
Well, gender is a protected class, even more so in California. As always, private entities can discriminate until they can't.
Right, but given that sex discrimination for reasons of athletic competition still exists within California public schools, I doubt it can be reasonably claimed that CrossFit was in the wrong; at least outside their insistence on consideration of sex at birth.
Well, only allowing naturally born, or cis-women to appear on all women teams is discriminatory against transwomen, who are biologically pretty damn close to women.
And sure, biology matters. I"m not sure why it matters enough to discriminate on, but maybe you could give some reasons/examples of when it's important to know.
Where is your proof of this? On average, transwomen might be close to biological women given a certain standard, but unless you have observed every single transwoman and determined that they are all "close enough", it's still unfair because many will have an advantage. Besides, "close enough" isn't fair. Standards exist for a reason, and there's no fair category called "close enough".
Again, biology matters. If you find that giving credence to the objective facts of biology is discriminatory in a negative sense, i.e. bigotry, then take it up with mother nature for making women physically weaker than men.
"The right to identity", now there's something, lol. I don't know anybody who has the right to identity and I don't remember seeing anything about it in the US Constitution. This right to identity thing sounds like the right to be whatever you want to be, even if you're... not. So the fact that you admitted it infringes on competition, i.e. the fairness of the game, just makes it worse. I would argue that a person does not have the right to identity, and even if they do, their right to be whatever they want regardless of facts is trivial and shouldn't trump actual rights, such as a woman's right to feel safe without having 300lbs men with prison records use the same restroom as her because it's their "right to identity".
There are surprisingly few rights in the Constitution, and if you see that as the be all and end of all of human rights, you're going to be disappointed.
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.
I don't know how unfair it is to have transwomen compete. Common sense seems to indicate that it would be, but the most important sporting event in the world seems to not think it too unfair, and they are people that take away medals for smoking pot.
Oddly, a right to "feel safe" is no more in the constitution, or any laws, then the right to identity. You raise a fairly ludicrous example, but I think it shows that there are overlapping rights. That's the serious core of the discussion.
"The right to identity", now there's something, lol. I don't know anybody who has the right to identity and I don't remember seeing anything about it in the US Constitution. This right to identity thing sounds like the right to be whatever you want to be, even if you're... not. So the fact that you admitted it infringes on competition, i.e. the fairness of the game, just makes it worse. I would argue that a person does not have the right to identity, and even if they do, their right to be whatever they want regardless of facts is trivial and shouldn't trump actual rights, such as a woman's right to feel safe without having 300lbs men with prison records use the same restroom as her because it's their "right to identity".
There are surprisingly few rights in the Constitution, and if you see that as the be all and end of all of human rights, you're going to be disappointed.
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.
I don't know how unfair it is to have transwomen compete. Common sense seems to indicate that it would be, but the most important sporting event in the world seems to not think it too unfair, and they are people that take away medals for smoking pot.
Oddly, a right to "feel safe" is no more in the constitution, or any laws, then the right to identity. You raise a fairly ludicrous example, but I think it shows that there are overlapping rights. That's the serious core of the discussion.
I used the US Constitution as an example because it is relatively objective in this case, in the sense that it includes "rights" as generally agreed upon by society. But "rights" are a human construct, in nature there are no "rights" because rights are a product of human morality, which is subjective. Saying someone has a right to something is basically saying that in your opinion someone should be allowed to be or do something because that's how you feel. How you feel doesn't matter in sports. Just because a transwoman feels the same as a biological woman doesn't mean he is.
And whether or not a given sporting event considers something fair or not is irrelevant, they are not the arbiters of fairness and I would argue my same points with them.
I used the US Constitution as an example because it is relatively objective in this case, in the sense that it includes "rights" as generally agreed upon by society. But "rights" are a human construct, in nature there are no "rights" because rights are a product of human morality, which is subjective. Saying someone has a right to something is basically saying that in your opinion someone should be allowed to be or do something because that's how you feel. How you feel doesn't matter in sports. Just because a transwoman feels the same as a biological woman doesn't mean he is.
And whether or not a given sporting event considers something fair or not is irrelevant, they are not the arbiters of fairness and I would argue my same points with them.
Are you arguing that sports rely on a more immutable and objective moral framework then the concept of human rights?
Where is your proof of this? On average, transwomen might be close to biological women given a certain standard, but unless you have observed every single transwoman and determined that they are all "close enough", it's still unfair because many will have an advantage. Besides, "close enough" isn't fair. Standards exist for a reason, and there's no fair category called "close enough".
How would you define a woman, or a man? The sort of genitalia they happen to have?
I used the US Constitution as an example because it is relatively objective in this case, in the sense that it includes "rights" as generally agreed upon by society. But "rights" are a human construct, in nature there are no "rights" because rights are a product of human morality, which is subjective. Saying someone has a right to something is basically saying that in your opinion someone should be allowed to be or do something because that's how you feel. How you feel doesn't matter in sports. Just because a transwoman feels the same as a biological woman doesn't mean he is.
And whether or not a given sporting event considers something fair or not is irrelevant, they are not the arbiters of fairness and I would argue my same points with them.
Are you arguing that sports rely on a more immutable and objective moral framework then the concept of human rights?
No, I am arguing that sports rely on immutable and objective biology and that the concept of human rights can do nothing to change this. Fairness is a standard of equal opportunity. Biological men participating in a sport originally intended for biological women introduces an unfair advantage for the biological men and limits biological womens' opportunity in the competition.
Now, I can see objections to this. The first might be "how can you say that womens' sports were intended for biological women?" and to that I would say that referring to transgendered males as actual women is a relatively new phenomenon. 200 years ago pretty much nobody on earth would consider transwomen to be actual women, and society ultimately defines language. So in the past "woman" meant actual female, now it means something different but my point is that womens' sports were not in their inception intended for transwomen.
Second, you already said "the right to identity trumps the right to competition". As I already explained, "rights" are basically just opinions and if it is your opinion that identity rights are more important than competition rights, then we will just have to agree to disagree in the same way that I like vanilla ice cream and some people hate it. Personally, I do not want to live in a world dominated by people with unfair advantages in the name of identity.
GQ had an article on a transgendered MMA fighter (I forget her name) that I read recently. It was in the same issue as the Duck Dynasty homophobia incident, so if you have or can find that issue, that's my source.
Anywho, the article says that, given all of the estrogen a transgendered person takes every day, they actually have lower muscle mass than a man, and usually less testosterone than a normal woman would. This particular MMA fighter actually has less defined muscles on her body, because getting as ripped as most MMA fighters is impossible with as much estrogen coursing through your blood as she has. Yes, her bone density is higher than a woman's, but nobody has suggested that bone density is some kind of unfair advantage in a kung-fu fight.
No, I am arguing that sports rely on immutable and objective biology and that the concept of human rights can do nothing to change this. Fairness is a standard of equal opportunity. Biological men participating in a sport originally intended for biological women introduces an unfair advantage for the biological men and limits biological womens' opportunity in the competition.
Now, I can see objections to this. The first might be "how can you say that womens' sports were intended for biological women?" and to that I would say that referring to transgendered males as actual women is a relatively new phenomenon. 200 years ago pretty much nobody on earth would consider transwomen to be actual women, and society ultimately defines language. So in the past "woman" meant actual female, now it means something different but my point is that womens' sports were not in their inception intended for transwomen.
Second, you already said "the right to identity trumps the right to competition". As I already explained, "rights" are basically just opinions and if it is your opinion that identity rights are more important than competition rights, then we will just have to agree to disagree in the same way that I like vanilla ice cream and some people hate it. Personally, I do not want to live in a world dominated by people with unfair advantages in the name of identity.
for a person that seems to find "rights" to be little more then opinions, you love the concept of fairness. I'm not sure that's fully consistent.
I don't think I ever said that a right to identity trumps anything. I believe that a right to identity is a right that should be considered, and quite possibly would trump other rights, but I"m not sure I've made any sort of sweeping statements. I felt that you needed to weigh the right to fair competition against the right to identity. I merely pointed out the Olympics allow transwomen, post op and hormone treatment, to participate as women. Which to me indicates that their data, which is probably the best available, shows no significant advantage for transwomen. But who knows.
The women in the OP is a legal transwoman, seemingly eligible to compete as a woman in the Olympics. Unless you feel that there is a reason a local cross fit even should be more particular than the Olympics, I'd follow their precedent.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered. And believe it or not. Those men going under hormone therapy are actually loosing muscles.
Genetically she's still male though.
Any event where genders are broken out for phsyical reasons, sorry, but thats clearly discriminatory against everyone else.
Now, I can see objections to this. The first might be "how can you say that womens' sports were intended for biological women?" and to that I would say that referring to transgendered males as actual women is a relatively new phenomenon. 200 years ago pretty much nobody on earth would consider transwomen to be actual women, and society ultimately defines language. So in the past "woman" meant actual female, now it means something different but my point is that womens' sports were not in their inception intended for transwomen.
The social acceptance of women in sport is a relatively new phenomenon in and of itself, so the argument from history will not avail you.
Also, I'm still not clear as to what an "actual female" is.
Second, you already said "the right to identity trumps the right to competition". As I already explained, "rights" are basically just opinions and if it is your opinion that identity rights are more important than competition rights, then we will just have to agree to disagree in the same way that I like vanilla ice cream and some people hate it. Personally, I do not want to live in a world dominated by people with unfair advantages in the name of identity.
First, rights are not opinions. They are founded on opinions, but they are not the same.
Second, the irony in your last sentence is so thick it could be cut with a knife. As someone who is almost certainly cisgender and male, you enjoy many unfair advantages due to your identity.
Where is your proof of this? On average, transwomen might be close to biological women given a certain standard, but unless you have observed every single transwoman and determined that they are all "close enough", it's still unfair because many will have an advantage. Besides, "close enough" isn't fair. Standards exist for a reason, and there's no fair category called "close enough".
How would you define a woman, or a man? The sort of genitalia they happen to have?
Socially - by the gender they appear to be
Legally - by the genitalia they currently have
In sport - by the chromosome pair they have
curran12 wrote: The only thing I really take offense to in this thread is that folks are referring to the surgery as a 'cosmestic' change. That cannot be farther from the truth for transgender.
It doesn't change the muscular and bone structure they built before the change.
curran12 wrote: The only thing I really take offense to in this thread is that folks are referring to the surgery as a 'cosmestic' change. That cannot be farther from the truth for transgender.
It doesn't change the muscular and bone structure they built before the change.
Actually, all of the estrogen they are on does change the pre-change musculature. The bone structure remains the same, but muscle mass and density does change quite a bit.
Polonius wrote: The women in the OP is a legal transwoman, seemingly eligible to compete as a woman in the Olympics. Unless you feel that there is a reason a local cross fit even should be more particular than the Olympics, I'd follow their precedent.
I believe Crossfit should be able to choose whether or not to accept trans-people without getting threatened with a lawsuit. I don't go to Jiffy Lube and get mad when they don't want to make me a sandwich. If she doesn't like how Crossfit holds their competitions she is free not to participate.
dogma wrote: Second, the irony in your last sentence is so thick it could be cut with a knife. As someone who is almost certainly cisgender and male, you enjoy many unfair advantages due to your identity.
I think we should wait to see if scientific studies suggest whether or not a Transsexual woman is as physically capable as a man is before we give our knee jerk reactions to this. My opinion is that CrossFit made the right call here to be fair to the born female athletes.
Is anyone else reminded of the episode of Futurama with Bender trying to get into the female robot olympics? Not saying that this is a similar case but it's one of the first things I thought of.
No, I am arguing that sports rely on immutable and objective biology and that the concept of human rights can do nothing to change this. Fairness is a standard of equal opportunity. Biological men participating in a sport originally intended for biological women introduces an unfair advantage for the biological men and limits biological womens' opportunity in the competition.
Now, I can see objections to this. The first might be "how can you say that womens' sports were intended for biological women?" and to that I would say that referring to transgendered males as actual women is a relatively new phenomenon. 200 years ago pretty much nobody on earth would consider transwomen to be actual women, and society ultimately defines language. So in the past "woman" meant actual female, now it means something different but my point is that womens' sports were not in their inception intended for transwomen.
Second, you already said "the right to identity trumps the right to competition". As I already explained, "rights" are basically just opinions and if it is your opinion that identity rights are more important than competition rights, then we will just have to agree to disagree in the same way that I like vanilla ice cream and some people hate it. Personally, I do not want to live in a world dominated by people with unfair advantages in the name of identity.
for a person that seems to find "rights" to be little more then opinions, you love the concept of fairness. I'm not sure that's fully consistent.
I don't think I ever said that a right to identity trumps anything. I believe that a right to identity is a right that should be considered, and quite possibly would trump other rights, but I"m not sure I've made any sort of sweeping statements. I felt that you needed to weigh the right to fair competition against the right to identity. I merely pointed out the Olympics allow transwomen, post op and hormone treatment, to participate as women. Which to me indicates that their data, which is probably the best available, shows no significant advantage for transwomen. But who knows.
The women in the OP is a legal transwoman, seemingly eligible to compete as a woman in the Olympics. Unless you feel that there is a reason a local cross fit even should be more particular than the Olympics, I'd follow their precedent.
Here's the thing you need to ask yourself: what do actual athletes care about more, winning the game or making some kind of socially conscious statement?
If I were a biological female in womens' sports and my entire team was demolished by a team of biological males who have to train half as hard as me to obtain similar muscle mass, I would be quite upset. Especially since not all transwomen are on hormones, I could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder right now and stay off hormones and maintain my muscle mass, but by your definition I am still a woman. It would be ludicrous of me if I were a biological female athlete to say "Well, we lost to a team of biological males, but at least they have their identities. You go girls!"
Second, the irony in your last sentence is so thick it could be cut with a knife. As someone who is almost certainly cisgender and male, you enjoy many unfair advantages due to your identity.
Yeah, I'm sure you know everything about me and that's not a complete generalization at all. I'm just drowning in privilege, let me tell you.
Frazzled wrote:It doesn't change the muscular and bone structure they built before the change.
Orlanth wrote:Hard reality: Legally female but with an XY chromosome set that cant be changed and the musculature is based on this
Yes, it does change musculature. Muscle growth and retention is based partially off hormone balance (hence the use of steroids affecting hormone balance) and undergoing hormone replacement therapy for upwards of 8 years *will* cause your musculature to change.
It won't affect any bone density that's previously been developed, but I can't imagine bone density would give an unfair advantage in any sport other than maybe Martial Arts (where it might prevent injury a bit better) or a "who can break the other person's arm" competition.
dogma wrote: How would you define a woman, or a man? The sort of genitalia they happen to have?
The sort of genitalia they were born with would be a large part of it, sure.
So what would you class hermaphrodites or a woman affected by TFS/AIS?
Orlanth wrote:
In sport - by the chromosome pair they have
How does that work for XX/XY mosaicism? The olympics have both banned(Ewa Klobukowska, 1967) and allowed it and it's part of why they stopped during the gender testing.
Whether they can compete with men I think is a secondary issue. The issue is do trans women have such an advantage over ciswomen that they would dominate women's sports? In a certain light, that results in all sports be dominated by men (genetically anyway) and ciswomen being completely pushed out. it would be something of a massive irony for that to happen XD
But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job
Polonius wrote: The women in the OP is a legal transwoman, seemingly eligible to compete as a woman in the Olympics. Unless you feel that there is a reason a local cross fit even should be more particular than the Olympics, I'd follow their precedent.
I believe Crossfit should be able to choose whether or not to accept trans-people without getting threatened with a lawsuit. I don't go to Jiffy Lube and get mad when they don't want to make me a sandwich. If she doesn't like how Crossfit holds their competitions she is free not to participate.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but California does.
Civil Code Section 51(e)(5): (5) "Sex" includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. "Sex" also includes, but is not limited to, a person's gender. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender expression.
"Gender expression" means a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."
Yeah, I'm sure you know everything about me and that's not a complete generalization at all. I'm just drowning in privilege, let me tell you.
If you failed to take advantage of the opportunities presented by your identity the fault is you own. As it relates to this conversation, you would do well to consider how difficult life would be for a transgender person.
Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.
LordofHats wrote: Whether they can compete with men I think is a secondary issue. The issue is do trans women have such an advantage over ciswomen that they would dominate women's sports? In a certain light, that results in all sports be dominated by men (genetically anyway) and ciswomen being completely pushed out. it would be something of a massive irony for that to happen XD
But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job
Again, I note the Olympic policy, which I would imagine was based on more than educated guesses.
Again, I note the Olympic policy, which I would imagine was based on more than educated guesses.
I'll hold my breath for actual data. We are talking about the same people who put the 2016 games in Rio with an apparently 0% of concern about the fact that the city is ten steps away from anarchy at any given time.
But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job
It would depend on how far along they were in their therapy but the most significant, permanent, advantage would be the skeletal structure of their upper body.
As to actual study: its highly unlikely to ever happen for ethical reasons, and such a study would probably produce inconclusive results due to a small sample size.
SilverMK2 wrote: Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.
Statement of the Stockholm consensus on sex reassignment in sports
On 28 October 2003, an ad-hoc committee convened by the IOC Medical
Commission met in Stockholm to discuss and issue recommendations on the
participation of individuals who have undergone sex reassignment (male to
female and converse) in sport.
This group was composed of:
Prof. Arne Ljungqvist (SWE)
Prof. Odile Cohen-Haguenauer (FRA)
Prof. Myron Genel (USA)
Prof. Joe Leigh Simpson (USA)
Prof. Martin Ritzen (SWE)
Prof. Marc Fellous (FRA)
Dr Patrick Schamasch (FRA)
The group confirms the previous recommendation that any “individuals
undergoing sex reassignment of male to female before puberty should be
regarded as girls and women” (female). This applies as well for female to male
reassignment, who should be regarded as boys and men (male).
The group recommends that individuals undergoing sex reassignment from
male to female after puberty (and the converse) be eligible for participation in
female or male competitions, respectively, under the following conditions:
q Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external
genitalia changes and gonadectomy
q Legal recognition of their assigned sex has been conferred by the
appropriate official authorities
q Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been
administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to
minimise gender-related advantages in sport competitions.
In the opinion of the group, eligibility should begin no sooner than two years
after gonadectomy.
It is understood that a confidential case-by-case evaluation will occur.
In the event that the gender of a competing athlete is questioned, the medical
delegate (or equivalent) of the relevant sporting body shall have the authority to
take all appropriate measures for the determination of the gender of a
competitor.
The key phrase to me is requirement #3: "Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been
administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to
minimise gender-related advantages in sport competitions."
This indicates two things: transwomen can have an advantage, but that advantage can be minimized with treatment.
SilverMK2 wrote: Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.
It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.
SilverMK2 wrote: Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.
It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.
I will preface this by saying I am a clinical scientist - while the population of trans athletes is not huge, it is surprisingly large. Even if the current population is not sufficiently large to make any kind of fine level predictions possible, it should be more than large enoigh to give you at least general trends. And as time goes on, the population will only increase.
Gender divisions in sport are not premised on what the law recognizes as one's gender but rather the physical differences, generally speaking, between how male and female bodies develop.
SilverMK2 wrote: Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.
It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.
I will preface this by saying I am a clinical scientist - while the population of trans athletes is not huge, it is surprisingly large. Even if the current population is not sufficiently large to make any kind of fine level predictions possible, it should be more than large enoigh to give you at least general trends. And as time goes on, the population will only increase.
I would say more but I am now going to the pub
You'd have to analyze VO2 max, limit strength, explosive strength, reflexes, and hand eye coordination before and after at a minimum. That's not very simple.
But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job
It would depend on how far along they were in their therapy but the most significant, permanent, advantage would be the skeletal structure of their upper body.
As to actual study: its highly unlikely to ever happen for ethical reasons, and such a study would probably produce inconclusive results due to a small sample size.
You keep implying that all transwomen are on hormones. This is not the case. A 300lbs body builder could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder but keep his muscles and beard and still join womens sports. How is this fair? And since when did transwomen need to alter their bodies? I thought biology didn't matter and it's all about how you feel on the inside. So why try to change your outside to reflect society's oppressive definition of womanhood?
You keep implying that all transwomen are on hormones. This is not the case. A 300lbs body builder could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder but keep his muscles and beard and still join womens sports. How is this fair? And since when did transwomen need to alter their bodies? I thought biology didn't matter and it's all about how you feel on the inside. So why try to change your outside to reflect society's oppressive definition of womanhood?
Not all transwomen are on hormones to be sure, but to be legally recognized as a woman you will mostly likely undergo surgery and hormone therapy.
The effort one makes to present ones identity is a strong factor in our need to recognize it. A guy in a dress is not in any physical way a woman, a transwoman five years into hormone therapy is in most physical ways a woman.
The idea is not, and never has been, that a person can adopt whatever identity they wish and force everybody to respect it. The idea is that more identities are valid then we think, and some should be recognized.
The idea is not, and never has been, that a person can adopt whatever identity they wish and force everybody to respect it. The idea is that more identities are valid then we think, and some should be recognized.
You keep implying that all transwomen are on hormones. This is not the case. A 300lbs body builder could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder but keep his muscles and beard and still join womens sports. How is this fair? And since when did transwomen need to alter their bodies? I thought biology didn't matter and it's all about how you feel on the inside. So why try to change your outside to reflect society's oppressive definition of womanhood?
Not all transwomen are on hormones to be sure, but to be legally recognized as a woman you will mostly likely undergo surgery and hormone therapy.
The effort one makes to present ones identity is a strong factor in our need to recognize it. A guy in a dress is not in any physical way a woman, a transwoman five years into hormone therapy is in most physical ways a woman.
The idea is not, and never has been, that a person can adopt whatever identity they wish and force everybody to respect it. The idea is that more identities are valid then we think, and some should be recognized.
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?
Would it be necessary? Transgender persons are detectable in society, they leave a legal papertrail.
I think its best to assume that are who they say they are unless given good reason otherwise.
We cant test everyone for everything, but we can act on reasonable suspicions.
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.
If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.
The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.
There are clear biological differences between men and women when it comes to physical events, which is why men's and women's sports are held separately. Even though they underwent elective surgery or live as a different gender it does not mean they have changed their biological make up. Even with long term hormone therapy the body still exhibits some development based on the biological gender particularly in terms of muscles mass and bone density.
I have no problems with transgender athletes participating in gender neutral events as those are open to everyone, but when you have established gender based events they should be barred as it creates performance issues. Competitive sports on the whole focus on pushing ourselves to the limit of our natural ability, but it is not acceptable to go beyond that through artificial alterations. We bar athletes that take steroids who are seeking to alter their biology through chemical means, transgender athletes are altering their biology through surgery and chemicals. If they are allowed to participate in sports it should only be allowed under whichever gender they are biologically.
The majority of the problem comes from biological men who are post op and trying to enter as women, even with hormone adjustments they have an elevated performance ability that biological females don't. If that's allowed we may as well allow open steroid use so that everyone can be the "perfect athlete" regardless of gender.
The majority of the problem comes from biological men who are post op and trying to enter as women, even with hormone adjustments they have an elevated performance ability that biological females don't.
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.
If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.
The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.
I don't see the point of your argument if you going to say "No your wrong except for these several examples". Seems like you said it for me. Keep transwomen out of female basketball is an opinion I hold, so I guess we agree on that. Or do we?
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.
If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.
The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.
I don't see the point of your argument if you going to say "No your wrong except for these several examples". Seems like you said it for me. Keep transwomen out of female basketball is an opinion I hold, so I guess we agree on that. Or do we?
I'm actually arguing that actual evidence of a competitive advantage should be a factor in deciding if a transwoman can participate in an event. The flip side is that I'm arguing that a lack of such evidence should allow for a transwoman (in this case, a post-operative and hormonally treated one) to participate in female sports.
You seem to want to close the door to all transwomen, under some mistaken notion that there is a clear definition of natural born woman.
That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.
If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.
The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.
I don't see the point of your argument if you going to say "No your wrong except for these several examples". Seems like you said it for me. Keep transwomen out of female basketball is an opinion I hold, so I guess we agree on that. Or do we?
I'm actually arguing that actual evidence of a competitive advantage should be a factor in deciding if a transwoman can participate in an event. The flip side is that I'm arguing that a lack of such evidence should allow for a transwoman (in this case, a post-operative and hormonally treated one) to participate in female sports.
You seem to want to close the door to all transwomen, under some mistaken notion that there is a clear definition of natural born woman.
My definition of "natural born woman" is someone who was born a woman and didn't decide they were a woman later in life. Now, if you're going to imply that babies are born gender neutral then that's a whole new can of worms but just know that it's going to result in a entirely new walls of spastic text that are outside the scope of the OP because IMO babies/children should not be treated as gender neutral because this is quite harmful. But I have nothing else to do today but argue on the internet lol. Well, there's FNM in a few hours.
The fact that you have to submit transgendered people to all kinds of tests to determine whether or not a given individual is fit for a sport is a good indicator that they aren't, it should be evident from the start. Why? Because you're never going to come to a satisfactory result and there is always the possibility of an unfair advantage.
ZultanQ wrote: That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.
Congratulations. You have become the very first person to join my ignore list, due to the sheer unbridled assholery of that post.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and you just posted the equivalent of scrawling badly spelt hate slogans on a wall in your own feces.
ZultanQ wrote: That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.
However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?
Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.
Well let's just say that I have my fair share of familiarity with transgender vaginas, lol. But if you want to post some kind of source that supports transwomen "vaginas" as being "close enough" then I'm all ears, I have read and seen enough to know that they aren't vagina enough for my definition and most gynecologists don't consider these pelvic cavities to be the aspirations of their careers.
My definition of "natural born woman" is someone who was born a woman and didn't decide they were a woman later in life.
What does it mean to be born a woman?
To be born in a gender role as determined by your biology. Having a vagina is a good start. Gender roles exist for a reason. For example, biological women are considered more "passive" because they are physically weaker than men on average. The whole concept of womanhood was created under the notion of a gender role for biological females. This isn't some conspiracy created by the patriarchal illuminati to keep women down, it's an objective fact.
To be born in a gender role as determined by your biology. Having a vagina is a good start. Gender roles exist for a reason. For example, biological women are considered more "passive" because they are physically weaker than men on average. The whole concept of womanhood was created under the notion of a gender role for biological females. This isn't some conspiracy created by the patriarchal illuminati to keep women down, it's an objective fact.
You keep repeating "born as a woman" and "woman by biology."
I"m asking for specifics: what makes a woman a woman? Genetics? Functioning reproductive system? Being raised as a woman? What is it?
To be born in a gender role as determined by your biology. Having a vagina is a good start. Gender roles exist for a reason. For example, biological women are considered more "passive" because they are physically weaker than men on average. The whole concept of womanhood was created under the notion of a gender role for biological females. This isn't some conspiracy created by the patriarchal illuminati to keep women down, it's an objective fact.
You keep repeating "born as a woman" and "woman by biology."
I"m asking for specifics: what makes a woman a woman? Genetics? Functioning reproductive system? Being raised as a woman? What is it?
As I said, and I think you would agree, "woman" is a gender role. My point is that this gender role was created by the attributes of biological females. When a transwoman says "I am a woman", what they are basically saying is "I fulfill the same gender role as biological females". But they do not because they do not possess the same attributes that created this gender role. They can try all the want but "close enough" only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.
As I said, and I think you would agree, "woman" is a gender role. My point is that this gender role was created by the attributes of biological females. When a transwoman says "I am a woman", what they are basically saying is "I fulfill the same gender role as biological females". But they do not because they do not possess the same attributes that created this gender role. They can try all the want but "close enough" only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Well, I think if you're going to argue that gender roles are fixed, then you have bigger problems. They so clearly aren't it's painful.
If anything, a transwoman couldn't fulfill the sexual roles of a cis-female, namely pregnanxy and lactation. Gender roles are simply behaviors. I think they're somewhat hard wired in, and the sexual dichotomy helps define them, but I"m not sure what female gender role couldn't be filled by any person, regardless of biological sex.
As I said, and I think you would agree, "woman" is a gender role. My point is that this gender role was created by the attributes of biological females. When a transwoman says "I am a woman", what they are basically saying is "I fulfill the same gender role as biological females". But they do not because they do not possess the same attributes that created this gender role. They can try all the want but "close enough" only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Well, I think if you're going to argue that gender roles are fixed, then you have bigger problems. They so clearly aren't it's painful.
If anything, a transwoman couldn't fulfill the sexual roles of a cis-female, namely pregnanxy and lactation. Gender roles are simply behaviors. I think they're somewhat hard wired in, and the sexual dichotomy helps define them, but I"m not sure what female gender role couldn't be filled by any person, regardless of biological sex.
If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?
Gender roles are behaviors, but there are reasons why certain people have certain behaviors. Biological females have traditionally fulfilled the "woman" gender role because the woman gender role is to possess the behaviors of a biological woman. However, the problem begins when you have situations like the OP where it's not just about behavior anymore, thus gender roles take a back seat to biology. Because the word "woman" has been hijacked to mean the gender role that I just defined instead of its original meaning (biological female), we shouldn't even have sports called womens' and mens' sports anymore, since being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behaviors. But what do these behaviors have to do with sports? The reason these sports were divided in the first place was because of the biological differences between biological women and biological men, it has nothing to do with gender roles and their associated behaviors.
This is why I suggested before that sports should be divided by biology versus gender roles.
Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.
I'm going to have to defer to Dakka's in house expert team on this. Where's Kronk for an opinion?
If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?
Gender roles are behaviors, but there are reasons why certain people have certain behaviors. Biological females have traditionally fulfilled the "woman" gender role because the woman gender role is to possess the behaviors of a biological woman. However, the problem begins when you have situations like the OP where it's not just about behavior anymore, thus gender roles take a back seat to biology. Because the word "woman" has been hijacked to mean the gender role that I just defined instead of its original meaning (biological female), we shouldn't even have sports called womens' and mens' sports anymore, since being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behaviors. But what do these behaviors have to do with sports? The reason these sports were divided in the first place was because of the biological differences between biological women and biological men, it has nothing to do with gender roles and their associated behaviors.
This is why I suggested before that sports should be divided by biology versus gender roles.
You're the only one in this thread bringing "gender roles" into the discussion. None of it makes any sense, especially this:
being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behavior
It's actually pretty much the opposite. Gender roles have expanded for both genders dramatically.
AS for biology, that's a good one. The question becomes, again, biologically, "what makes a woman a woman?" Specifically with regards to sports?
Seriously? Have you even seen a transwoman's vagina? (there are plenty of medical articles online on the subject, I'm not talking about the other type of website) You're saying stuff that can be completely disproven by just googling the information! Transwomen CAN get wet (that's a link to a forum post asking the same question). They may not be able to give birth (due to the somewhat obvious lack of a uterus), but they most certainly aren't just "Hole[s] in the transwoman's pelvis". Medical science is surprisingly advanced.
I'm going to have to defer to Dakka's in house expert team on this. Where's Kronk for an opinion?
lol'd. Somebody get the DTVTF (Dakka Tranny Vagina Task Force) in here pronto!
If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?
Gender roles are behaviors, but there are reasons why certain people have certain behaviors. Biological females have traditionally fulfilled the "woman" gender role because the woman gender role is to possess the behaviors of a biological woman. However, the problem begins when you have situations like the OP where it's not just about behavior anymore, thus gender roles take a back seat to biology. Because the word "woman" has been hijacked to mean the gender role that I just defined instead of its original meaning (biological female), we shouldn't even have sports called womens' and mens' sports anymore, since being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behaviors. But what do these behaviors have to do with sports? The reason these sports were divided in the first place was because of the biological differences between biological women and biological men, it has nothing to do with gender roles and their associated behaviors.
This is why I suggested before that sports should be divided by biology versus gender roles.
You're the only one in this thread bringing "gender roles" into the discussion. None of it makes any sense, especially this:
being a woman and being a man these days means subscribing to certain behavior
It's actually pretty much the opposite. Gender roles have expanded for both genders dramatically.
AS for biology, that's a good one. The question becomes, again, biologically, "what makes a woman a woman?" Specifically with regards to sports?
According to you, women have nothing to do with biology. However, biological females are clearly defined and it is my position that sports should be divided by biological female/male instead of woman/man.
ZultanQ wrote: If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?
Exactly.
You're advocating a legal position based on what is at best a very loose definition, and at worse something that is completely artificial and inherently unhelpful.
Gender roles in the modern, enlightened day and age, don't need to be a thing. There are certainly sexual roles (uteruses give birth, testes fertilise) but even then they're getting to the point that they're slightly fluid, what with recent advances in IVF. Gender roles are un-necessary in society, and using them as a basis for definitions is silly.
According to you, women have nothing to do with biology.
If I actually said that, please point it out so I can correct that. HOwever, I've been pretty clear about the need for hormone therapy and other factors, so I'm gonna feel okay call that a straw man.
Surgeries and hormone replacements alter the biology, which is one of the reasons definitions get fuzzy.
However, biological females are clearly defined
In most cases, sure. There are no shortage of examples of genetic misfits, hermaphrodites, and other things that complicate sex a lot.
it is my position that sports should be divided by biological female/male instead of woman/man.
I agree with you, I just feel that at some point a transwoman can be athletically comparable to a ciswoman, and thus qualifies.
ZultanQ wrote: If a concept doesn't have a fixed definition... then what are you trying to define?
Exactly.
You're advocating a legal position based on what is at best a very loose definition, and at worse something that is completely artificial and inherently unhelpful.
Gender roles in the modern, enlightened day and age, don't need to be a thing. There are certainly sexual roles (uteruses give birth, testes fertilise) but even then they're getting to the point that they're slightly fluid, what with recent advances in IVF. Gender roles are un-necessary in society, and using them as a basis for definitions is silly.
I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.
People are arguing ITT that transwomen have a right to participate in "female" sports because they have some right to an identity. I submit that identity has nothing to do with sports and a person's eligibility to participate in mens or womens sports comes down to biology, and furthermore that the man/woman labels on sports are misnomers since sports are divided by biology, not gender roles.
I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.
Literally nobody here is talking about gender roles other then you.
People are arguing ITT that transwomen have a right to participate in "male" sports because they have some right to an identity. I submit that identity has nothing to do with sports and a person's eligibility to participate in mens or womens sports comes down to biology, and furthermore that the man/woman labels on sports are misnomers since sports are divided by biology, not gender roles.
I guess you're really arguing that gender cannot be changed. That any identity, aside from the one assigned at birth, is defective.
That's a more coherent argument than you've been making, but it does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.
Literally nobody here is talking about gender roles other then you.
People are arguing ITT that transwomen have a right to participate in "male" sports because they have some right to an identity. I submit that identity has nothing to do with sports and a person's eligibility to participate in mens or womens sports comes down to biology, and furthermore that the man/woman labels on sports are misnomers since sports are divided by biology, not gender roles.
I guess you're really arguing that gender cannot be changed. That any identity, aside from the one assigned at birth, is defective.
That's a more coherent argument than you've been making, but it does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
Transwomen trying to pass as actual women has everything to do with gender roles, because if you are claiming that transwomen can become actual biological females, that's obviously not true. See: pregnancy. And if you say "well they can be close enough", I'm saying no, they cannot.
But let's say the can become pretty much biological women. Not all of them can even then. So what would be your standard? Do you mean to test every transwoman who tries out for womens sports, and if they don't meet the requirements, they can't join?
Talk about a crapstorm, that would open a pandora's box of lawsuits that may very well destroy the sports themselves. Now every single transwoman who got denied at the local womens' boxing ring is up in arms yelling about social justice and who are you to decide whether I'm a woman or not. This is the world we are headed toward with this kind of rampant liberal ideology.
I identify myself as xenu, alien emperor of mankind.
you are all rude bigots if you refer to me as: human, him, her, he.she, easysauce, or any titles that is not either "exalted xenu", "your majesty", "the emperor", or "xenu" if you are a close personal friend.
Not letting me rule the world as my self proclaimed identity allows me to, despite me wearing this crown and taking these pills for years, is bigoted and makes you a bad person.
ZultanQ wrote: I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.
I know it fits in with your whole world view thing, but that bit I've bolded... Seriously? You can write that out with a straight face and not go "okay, maybe I *am* being bit intolerant"
A few things though:
1) Women/female is an inherently social term, and using them to define sexual/biological roles is, at best, a bit wishy-washy.
2)If, you walked past most Post-op trans* people, you wouldn't be able to tell. Who are you to say "Oh, well before I thought you were a woman, cause you looked like one to me! now though, cause I know you used to be a biological male, I'm not going to accept you as female."?
3)I also think gender roles are given too much relevance, in that they shouldn't exist. full stop. Sexual roles are a thing, but they can be changed sex should follow one's gender, not the other way around, so arguing that someone shouldn't have as many rights as others because they had the misfortune to be born with their sex matching their gender strikes me as rather mean.
I don't have anything against them but i'm not able to understand why any guy would want his parts cut off, I mean isn't that like the greatest fear most men have?
Transwomen trying to pass as actual women has everything to do with gender roles, because if you are claiming that transwomen can become actual biological females, that's obviously not true. See: pregnancy. And if you say "well they can be close enough", I'm saying no, they cannot.
Pregnancy is not a gender role. Gender roles are social and behavioral aspects of gender. Giving birth is an aspect of biological females. Being a caregiver is a traditionally female gender role.
Also, keep in mind, that not all women can become pregnant. Are they not really women?
But let's say the can become pretty much biological women. Not all of them can even then. So what would be your standard? Do you mean to test every transwoman who tries out for womens sports, and if they don't meet the requirements, they can't join?
Talk about a crapstorm, that would open a pandora's box of lawsuits that may very well destroy the sports themselves. Now every single transwoman who got denied at the local womens' boxing ring is up in arms yelling about social justice and who are you to decide whether I'm a woman or not. This is the world we are headed toward with this kind of rampant liberal ideology.
Heading towards? The New York supreme court ruled that transwomen can compete in women's professional tennis in 1977. This isn't exactly fresh news. Guess what: hasn't destroyed a single sport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: I identify myself as xenu, alien emperor of mankind.
you are all rude bigots if you refer to me as: human, him, her, he.she, easysauce, or any titles that is not either "exalted xenu", "your majesty", "the emperor", or "xenu" if you are a close personal friend.
Not letting me rule the world as my self proclaimed identity allows me to, despite me wearing this crown and taking these pills for years, is bigoted and makes you a bad person.
Your argument would make sense if half the planet were emperors of mankind.
Also, trivializing gender reassignment as a custom change and a few pills is pretty ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironclad Warlord wrote: I don't have anything against them but i'm not able to understand why any guy would want his parts cut off, I mean isn't that like the greatest fear most men have?
It is. Which I think reinforces the idea that transwomen are pretty serious about not being men.
Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.
So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?
... but the most important sporting event in the world...
I don't think the World Cup weighed in on this at all.
squidhills wrote:GQ had an article on a transgendered MMA fighter (I forget her name) that I read recently. It was in the same issue as the Duck Dynasty homophobia incident, so if you have or can find that issue, that's my source.
Anywho, the article says that, given all of the estrogen a transgendered person takes every day, they actually have lower muscle mass than a man, and usually less testosterone than a normal woman would. This particular MMA fighter actually has less defined muscles on her body, because getting as ripped as most MMA fighters is impossible with as much estrogen coursing through your blood as she has. Yes, her bone density is higher than a woman's, but nobody has suggested that bone density is some kind of unfair advantage in a kung-fu fight.
That would be relevant if the question was could a trans-woman compete on even footing with a cis-male. And, according to what you said, the answer in that case would be no, because they don't have the same muscle mass.
However, that's not the relevant question to be asking or answering here. If we accept that a trans-woman loses muscle mass due to her hormone treatments, the relevant question is does she lose enough muscle mass to make it a fair competition with cis-women, and I don't think there's any data on that.
From the company's perspective, and in the absence of data, I can totally see how they'd want to err on the side of a fair competition for the hundreds of cis-women participating, at the risk of offending the one trans-woman. As what is essentially a marketing event, you'd far rather have one unhappy participant than several hundreds feeling cheated.
easysauce wrote: I identify myself as xenu, alien emperor of mankind.
you are all rude bigots if you refer to me as: human, him, her, he.she, easysauce, or any titles that is not either "exalted xenu", "your majesty", "the emperor", or "xenu" if you are a close personal friend.
Not letting me rule the world as my self proclaimed identity allows me to, despite me wearing this crown and taking these pills for years, is bigoted and makes you a bad person.
The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).
Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.
I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)
Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.
So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?
Knew a white guy in HS who got an African American based scholarship due to his family coming from South Africa.
Polonius wrote: Your argument would make sense if half the planet were emperors of mankind.
Also, trivializing gender reassignment as a custom change and a few pills is pretty ignorant.
half the population is not trans gendered either, yet you have no issue with that as a valid Identify,
even I know there are more then 3 genders, even before we start adding in all the vairous "trans" identities that come into play with gender reassingment, male, female, neither, both, are valid biologically.
Once we open up non biological orientations (which is 100% ok) we can no longer say this or that identity is invalid without being total hyppocrates.
somone identifying as an alien has just as much right to that identity as somone identifying as a trans-man or woman,
and while you could argue that my description of the process of becoming a trans-gender as being "trivial" it is, FACTUAL... they get surgery, take pills, fill out some forms and now they are X-gender as if biology didnt matter.
If anything is being trivialized, its actual biological men and women, and what it means to be one.
Polonius wrote: The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.
So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?
Actually, yes. I believe the legal cut off in the US is 4 generations(so around 1/16), but it may have changed since the last time I did research on it(gotta love race sociology classes, huh?).
Polonius wrote: Your argument would make sense if half the planet were emperors of mankind.
Also, trivializing gender reassignment as a custom change and a few pills is pretty ignorant.
half the population is not trans gendered either, yet you have no issue with that as a valid Identify,
even I know there are more then 3 genders, even before we start adding in all the vairous "trans" identities that come into play with gender reassingment, male, female, neither, both, are valid biologically.
Once we open up non biological orientations (which is 100% ok) we can no longer say this or that identity is invalid without being total hyppocrates.
somone identifying as an alien has just as much right to that identity as somone identifying as a trans-man or woman,
and while you could argue that my description of the process of becoming a trans-gender as being "trivial" it is, FACTUAL... they get surgery, take pills, fill out some forms and now they are X-gender as if biology didnt matter.
If anything is being trivialized, its actual biological men and women, and what it means to be one.
I didn't realise it was possible to be born an alien! When did this happen? Are there pics? Surely anyone that's born as an alien (as there must be for the "I wasn't born an alien but I am one inside" thing to work) would be famous by now! This is amazing! To think, we were talking about trans* discrimination and we've suddenly found proof of aliens!
Except, you know, not.
somone identifying as an alien has just as much right to that identity as somone identifying as a trans-man or woman,
It's possible for a human being to be born as man, woman, or in between. It is not possible for a human being to be born as an alien, and so saying that someone can be "incorrectly" born as male-female when they should be "alien" (something that isn't possible) is ridiculous.
Polonius wrote:
The right to identity is the idea that a person can identify as they want, not as society demands. If a man identifies as a woman, he can. If a white skinned person of Mexican origin wants to identify as latino, they can. I mean, clearly, there are limits. If you want to identify as female you need to present yourself as such, and so on. But basically if a person can make a good case for having an identity, they have a right to it.
So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?
Well, people can see through identities of convenience, but if you found that you had an African ancestor, and grew to embrace that aspect of your past, that's who you are. If you chose to identify publicly as African American, that's your right.
Any job that actually favors minorities is going to favor minorities that look like minorities though, and you have sort of stumbled across the difference between ancestry and race. Also, more then a few thinkers would disagree with me, and argue that those that can "pass" should not claim the identity.
From the company's perspective, and in the absence of data, I can totally see how they'd want to err on the side of a fair competition for the hundreds of cis-women participating, at the risk of offending the one trans-woman. As what is essentially a marketing event, you'd far rather have one unhappy participant than several hundreds feeling cheated.
And that's a good practical point. California law may make their strategic decision moot, but I'm not saying I agree with the breadth of california's laws.
Goliath wrote: The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).
Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.
I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)
I can certainly get surgery to make me LOOK like an alien... surgery is 100% capable of that, legally, yes I can also have my ethnicity changed to that word, so both your points there fail.
you middle point, "Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly."
so before the world recognized "trans-identities" those people were just "dick(s), or having mental issues" as you so eloquently put it?
cant pick and choose what identities are valid (well you can, it just makes you a hyppocrate)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: It is not possible for a human being to be born as an alien, and so saying that someone can be "incorrectly" born as male-female when they should be "alien" (something that isn't possible) is ridiculous.
so if someone wants to BE an alien, or identify as one, they must be BORN as an alien...
hmmm, funny, when you apply that logic to trans gender, its called bigoted discriminatory, wrong ect (as it should be)
again, you cannot have it both ways, either what you were born as matters, or it does not.
Goliath wrote: The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).
Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.
I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)
I can certainly get surgery to make me LOOK like an alien... surgery is 100% capable of that, legally, yes I can also have my ethnicity changed to that word, so both your points there fail.
you middle point, "Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly."
so before the world recognized "trans-identities" those people were just "dick(s), or having mental issues" as you so eloquently put it?
cant pick and choose what identities are valid (well you can, it just makes you a hyppocrate)
The between far fetched and delusional is a fine one.
A transwoman looks like a woman, has sex like a woman, and is legally a woman. That's not delusional. They are, in more ways then not, women. They are men in very few ways, if any. A transwoman is mentally healthier than prior to the process. Not a delusion.
No matter what you do, you won't actually become an alien.
Goliath wrote: The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).
Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.
I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)
I can certainly get surgery to make me LOOK like an alien... surgery is 100% capable of that, legally, yes I can also have my ethnicity changed to that word, so both your points there fail.
you middle point, "Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly."
so before the world recognized "trans-identities" those people were just "dick(s), or having mental issues" as you so eloquently put it?
cant pick and choose what identities are valid (well you can, it just makes you a hyppocrate)
Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?
Not everyone is British, so yes.
I believe you mean "Is it possible to be born as an extraterrestrial?"
Goliath wrote: The issue here is that there aren't three genders (being Male, Female and Xenu), so identifying as "Xenu" is just you being a dick, or having mental issues, or both. Unfortunately for you, there is no surgery available to allow you to transition from (presumably) male, to Xenu; nor is there the legal recourse to allow you to legally become "Xenu" (In any aspect other than name).
Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly.
I wish you luck in your rule of mankind though; it would make a pleasant change from the secret cabal of space lizards. (Unless you're a space lizard, in which case we've already got a surplus)
I can certainly get surgery to make me LOOK like an alien... surgery is 100% capable of that, legally, yes I can also have my ethnicity changed to that word, so both your points there fail.
you middle point, "Therefore, up until the point in time at which "Xenu Identity Disorder" becomes a recognised thing, you're out of luck sadly."
so before the world recognized "trans-identities" those people were just "dick(s), or having mental issues" as you so eloquently put it?
cant pick and choose what identities are valid (well you can, it just makes you a hyppocrate)
Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?
Not everyone is British, so yes.
I believe you mean "Is it possible to be born as an extraterrestrial?"
Well yes, but I was using the term that Easysauce used for continuity's sake.
Goliath wrote: Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?
yes, its 100% possible to be born an alien, but in a human body, just as trans gender people claim to be "men born in womens bodies" and vise versa.
also, humans could have babies in space, aliens somewhere must be having babies.
I love how all of a sudden what you are born as is now "what you must be" according to you... seriously, that is the literal antithesis of the transgender movement.
Goliath wrote: Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?
yes, its 100% possible to be born an alien, but in a human body, just as trans gender people claim to be "men born in womens bodies" and vise versa. also, humans could have babies in space, aliens somewhere must be having babies.
I love how all of a sudden what you are born as is now "what you must be" according to you... seriously, that is the literal antithesis of the transgender movement.
Aliens don't exist. Women do. Becoming a woman is something that makes sense. Becoming something fictional makes... less sense.
Also, there is no package of societal roles for aliens. Transwomen don't want to be treated like something different, they want to be treated like women.
Goliath wrote: Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?
yes, its 100% possible to be born an alien, but in a human body, just as trans gender people claim to be "men born in womens bodies" and vise versa. also, humans could have babies in space, aliens somewhere must be having babies.
I love how all of a sudden what you are born as is now "what you must be" according to you... seriously, that is the literal antithesis of the transgender movement.
Transitioning gender =\= transitioning species.
A Therian can believe they're a cat or dog, but they'll never be a cat or dog, no matter how they much identify as such.
some would say trans women dont exist, just men that cut off their junk and had hormone therapy. They would be wrong, just as you are wrong polonius.
aliens do exist, even if they did not, I could just as easily choose to identify as a cat, dog, chair, or peice of cheese. These things are most certainly real, and surgery exists to make me LOOK like them.
my biological identity, has nothing to do with it, just as you assert the biological identity of a trans woman (who is biologically a man) has nothing to do with it.
so you keep asserting, on the one hand that biology doesnt matter at all for trans gendered people,
but that biology is the ONLY thing that matters for transhuman peoples?
Goliath wrote: Is it possible to be born as an alien? yes/no?
yes, its 100% possible to be born an alien, but in a human body, just as trans gender people claim to be "men born in womens bodies" and vise versa.
also, humans could have babies in space, aliens somewhere must be having babies.
I love how all of a sudden what you are born as is now "what you must be" according to you... seriously, that is the literal antithesis of the transgender movement.
And I love how you can't seem to follow a simple line of reasoning and are calling me a hypocrite when you can't even spell it.
ALIENS ARE NOT REAL.
It is not possible for anyone to be born as a biological alien/extra-terrestrial/Xenu, because aliens/extra-terrestrials/Xenu ARE NOT REAL.
It is possible for a human to be born as biologically male, female, or anywhere in between. it is not possible for a human to be born as biologically alien/extra-terrestrial/Xenu.
Human-Male/Human-Female are on the same level; it is possible to transition between them with virtually no appreciable difference between the intended gender and your appearance.
Human/Alien are not on the same level, much as Human/Giraffe, Human/Hippo, Human/Anglerfish, Human/Termite, and Human/Eagle are not on the same level.
To equate a person feeling that they have been born into the wrong sex with a person feeling that they have been born into the wrong (imaginary) species is quite frankly asinine.
easysauce wrote: my biological identity, has nothing to do with it, just as you assert the biological identity of a trans woman (who is biologically a man) has nothing to do with it.
It's like a shift change. You're making the same dumb argument.
Biological identity has a lot to do with social identity. We don't consider crossdresser to be women, as a rule, nor do we consider furries to be animals. A person that has altered their body and hormones and presents as a different gender has made large biological changes to their identity, which engenders a certain respect.
so you keep asserting, on the one hand that biology doesnt matter at all for trans gendered people,
So far, other people have said that I've said that more times then I've said that, which is zero times.
but that biology is the ONLY thing that matters for transhuman peoples?
and just FYI, trans human, is a recognized thing.
just saying.
Well, not being a troll is the thing that matters for your xenu argument.
But if you want to change your species, you can try. I don't know what, exactly, you expect to happen.
the question isn't how much a person is the thing they claim to be. I mean, how much of a Man am I, really? The question is to what extent does society recognize you as that identity. Society doesn't recognize anybody as an alien, and if you want to be treated as an animal, prepare to be disappointed. There are also ethical question of the extent to which you can disavow the will and agnecy of humanity, but whatever.
The question is, should a person that identifies as a woman, looks like a woman, and has undergone a lot of work to be anatomically female, be treated as a female?
Most transhumans, to my knowledge, do not undergo extensive surgery to match their physical species to their mental species.
The most extensive "species re-assignment" that I can find after a quick google, is the case of Daniel Avner, who spent many thousands of dollars undergoing surgery so that he could become a cat
Spoiler:
based on that photo, he would not "pass" as a cat.
Most trans* people, however, would most definitely "pass" as the sex they are striving for.
To say that a trans* person who undergoes surgery and hormone therapy, and if put in a crowd could not be picked out as trans* is the exact same situation as Daniel Avner is silly.
The most extensive "species re-assignment" that I can find after a quick google, is the case of Daniel Avner, who spent many thousands of dollars undergoing surgery so that he could become a cat
Spoiler:
And not just a cat. He specifically got surgeries to look like a female tiger.
Most transhumans, to my knowledge, do not undergo extensive surgery to match their physical species to their mental species.
so, because the surgery didnt exist 100 years ago for gender reasignment, then 100 years ago there were no transgender people?
trans gender, is not defined by the surgery you undergo, it is defined by how you feel. A trans person who has had 0 surgery has just as much of a right to choose how they identify as someone who has spent millions making the cosmetic changes.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: I don't have anything against them but i'm not able to understand why any guy would want his parts cut off, I mean isn't that like the greatest fear most men have?
A man doesn't want his parts cut off. He likes his parts, they are part of his identity as a man. Some men have bigger identities than others.
A woman doesn't need and doesn't want these parts and has no problem getting the correct parts.
and while you could argue that my description of the process of becoming a trans-gender as being "trivial" it is, FACTUAL... they get surgery, take pills, fill out some forms and now they are X-gender as if biology didnt matter.
Biology does matter. That's why they are using surgery and hormones to make their biology match their identity.
If anything is being trivialized, its actual biological men and women, and what it means to be one.
If being a man = having a penis, then surgically creating a penis because you are a man doesn't really trivialize biological men.
If being a woman = having women hormones, then taking woman hormones because you are a woman doesn't trivialize biological women.
Most transhumans, to my knowledge, do not undergo extensive surgery to match their physical species to their mental species.
so, because the surgery didnt exist 100 years ago for gender reasignment, then 100 years ago there were no transgender people?
trans gender, is not defined by the surgery you undergo, it is defined by how you feel. A trans person who has had 0 surgery has just as much of a right to choose how they identify as someone who has spent millions making the cosmetic changes.
That's actually a pretty debatable point, at least in the broader sense.
Strictly speaking, an individual can identify however he wants, even as Xenu. The extent to which society should respect that identity is different. We tend to look at commitment to the identity, and ability to take the identity seriously before extending them the treatment they request.
d-usa wrote: Biology does matter. That's why they are using surgery and hormones to make their biology match their identity.
you dont know what biology is... surgery cannot change your biological sex anymore then it can change your race or species. It can sure make you LOOK like whatever else, but thats not the same.
surgery and hormone pills are not a persons "biology", and these process 100% do NOT make someone trans gendered (they are welcome changes that I fully support for concenting adults to undergo)
otherwise, I could take an unwilling participant, do some surgery + pills, and bam, your are now biologically a woman.
So while they may significantly change the appearance, they dont change the biology one bit.. the trans woman will still have two X genes, the man will still have XY. the trans man wont start getting pregnant, and the trans woman wont start producing sperm....iand f the pills run out, you start to revert in most cases to the natural biological state, sans chopped off items growing back of course.
A persons "true" identity is still where it has always been, not in the body, but in the mind.
d-usa wrote: Biology does matter. That's why they are using surgery and hormones to make their biology match their identity.
you dont know what biology is... surgery cannot change your biological sex anymore then it can change your race or species. It can sure make you LOOK like whatever else, but thats not the same.
surgery and hormone pills are not a persons "biology", and these process 100% do NOT make someone trans gendered (they are welcome changes that I fully support for concenting adults to undergo).
Actually, it's you who doesn't know what biology is. Hormones and physical characteristics(taxonomy) are very much someone's biology. You keep using "biology" when the word you want is "genetics".
d-usa wrote: Biology does matter. That's why they are using surgery and hormones to make their biology match their identity.
you dont know what biology is... surgery cannot change your biological sex anymore then it can change your race or species. It can sure make you LOOK like whatever else, but thats not the same.
surgery and hormone pills are not a persons "biology", and these process 100% do NOT make someone trans gendered (they are welcome changes that I fully support for concenting adults to undergo)
otherwise, I could take an unwilling participant, do some surgery + pills, and bam, your are now biologically a woman.
So while they may significantly change the appearance, they dont change the biology one bit.. the trans woman will still have two X genes, the man will still have XY. the trans man wont start getting pregnant, and the trans woman wont start producing sperm....iand f the pills run out, you start to revert in most cases to the natural biological state, sans chopped off items growing back of course.
A persons "true" identity is still where it has always been, not in the body, but in the mind.
Well, you don't seem to understand biology yourself considering that you appear to be under the impression of "be born with the right part between your leg and the right chromosome and bam you are now a man or a woman.
A person with the male chromosome and a penis can still be biologically a woman because what happens in your brain is just as much biology as the hormones that you might be exposed to while developing, both of which can make you a female due to biological factors despite what parts or chromosomes you were born with.
There is a lot you don't know, and your statements make that pretty clear to everyone.
SilverMK2 wrote: Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.
It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.
I will preface this by saying I am a clinical scientist - while the population of trans athletes is not huge, it is surprisingly large. Even if the current population is not sufficiently large to make any kind of fine level predictions possible, it should be more than large enoigh to give you at least general trends. And as time goes on, the population will only increase.
I would say more but I am now going to the pub
You'd have to analyze VO2 max, limit strength, explosive strength, reflexes, and hand eye coordination before and after at a minimum. That's not very simple.
Whilst it would be nice to have that data and other information, you really don't need it if you have records of performance in competitions and other public data (such as age, height and so on).
It would be reasonably simple to get a reasonable measure on gender swap athletes and how they relate to the population they wish to compete against.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered. And believe it or not. Those men going under hormone therapy are actually loosing muscles.
From the point at which they started hormone therapy, sure. But unless the man starts hormone therapy at puberty, he'll always have an unfair advantage over women who have always been women.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered. And believe it or not. Those men going under hormone therapy are actually loosing muscles.
From the point at which they started hormone therapy, sure. But unless the man starts hormone therapy at puberty, he'll always have an unfair advantage over women who have always been women.
due to what? Increased bone density? Any increase in muscle brought about by being male is nullified by hormone replacement therapy.
Redbeard wrote: So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?
ZultanQ wrote: I'm advocating nothing of the sort, especially not the rigidity of gender roles. I humored the idea of the "woman gender role" for the sake of argument but really, "biological females being biological females" isn't much of a role because I do not view MTFs to be women. I'm simply trying to understand the definition that people have ITT, because I personally think the emphasis placed on gender roles here or in society at large is given way too much relevance.
I know it fits in with your whole world view thing, but that bit I've bolded... Seriously? You can write that out with a straight face and not go "okay, maybe I *am* being bit intolerant"
A few things though:
1) Women/female is an inherently social term, and using them to define sexual/biological roles is, at best, a bit wishy-washy.
2)If, you walked past most Post-op trans* people, you wouldn't be able to tell. Who are you to say "Oh, well before I thought you were a woman, cause you looked like one to me! now though, cause I know you used to be a biological male, I'm not going to accept you as female."?
3)I also think gender roles are given too much relevance, in that they shouldn't exist. full stop. Sexual roles are a thing, but they can be changed sex should follow one's gender, not the other way around, so arguing that someone shouldn't have as many rights as others because they had the misfortune to be born with their sex matching their gender strikes me as rather mean.
Do you actually believe this stuff, out of curiosity?
squidhills wrote:GQ had an article on a transgendered MMA fighter (I forget her name) that I read recently. It was in the same issue as the Duck Dynasty homophobia incident, so if you have or can find that issue, that's my source.
Anywho, the article says that, given all of the estrogen a transgendered person takes every day, they actually have lower muscle mass than a man, and usually less testosterone than a normal woman would. This particular MMA fighter actually has less defined muscles on her body, because getting as ripped as most MMA fighters is impossible with as much estrogen coursing through your blood as she has. Yes, her bone density is higher than a woman's, but nobody has suggested that bone density is some kind of unfair advantage in a kung-fu fight.
That would be relevant if the question was could a trans-woman compete on even footing with a cis-male. And, according to what you said, the answer in that case would be no, because they don't have the same muscle mass.
However, that's not the relevant question to be asking or answering here. If we accept that a trans-woman loses muscle mass due to her hormone treatments, the relevant question is does she lose enough muscle mass to make it a fair competition with cis-women, and I don't think there's any data on that.
I didn't make it clear in my original post, but the MMA fighter wasn't competing against men; she was competing against women. Quite a few potential opponents had issues with her having been born a man, claiming that she was naturally stronger than any female opponent due to her "male" musculature. In the two bouts she has fought since coming out as trans, it was made pretty clear that she wasn't any stronger than her female opponents, and the reason is that all of the estrogen she sucks down each morning prevents her from putting on the kind of muscle you'd see on a man. In the end, she is on a more even footing with a female opponent than she would be with a male one. In her current physical state, forcing her to only fight male opponents because she was born male would be unfair, as she is measurably weaker than they are. Denying her the opportunity to compete in any sport at all (which would be the practical result of preventing her from competing with women, as there aren't enough athletes to form a trans sport league) would be wrong.
Transwomen trying to pass as actual women has everything to do with gender roles, because if you are claiming that transwomen can become actual biological females, that's obviously not true. See: pregnancy. And if you say "well they can be close enough", I'm saying no, they cannot.
Is a person who has female genitalia, but never develops the corresponding internal sex organs, a woman?
The weirdest idea running through this thread is that all women are identical clones with identical athletic potential and performance and that adding more women who have potentially slightly different physiology is going to ruin the purity of the event. Guys, the purity of the event doesn't exist. People's athletic performance and potential already varies a ton anyway. Unless post-op trans women have some serious overriding advantage (no evidence of which has been produced such far) it's an absolute nonissue, because the field isn't even to begin with and any advantage (or disadvantage; if trans women build muscle like cis women and have heavier skeletons then wouldn't that be a hindrance?) is going to be lost in the noise.
However, that's not the relevant question to be asking or answering here. If we accept that a trans-woman loses muscle mass due to her hormone treatments, the relevant question is does she lose enough muscle mass to make it a fair competition with cis-women, and I don't think there's any data on that.
If you don't let them compete, there won't be any data.
I mean, hypothetically you could arrange a competition for the purposes of creating data, but that runs into issues of competitor selection and effort that would almost certainly render it inaccurate.
I would assume hormone treatment starts with a baseline that is adjusted as recommended by a medical professional, like most forms of treatment/medical care.
I wonder if they could restrict her on doping grounds. She claims to be woman, but it would be easy to show that she had been on high levels of testosterone for years (when she was a man). If you could show that for any other woman that would clearly be grounds for disqualification.
So what happens when they stop taking their hormones and start bulking back up? And how do you decide how much hormone is enough? Say, the doctor proscribes 100 milligrams of estrogen each day for five years. But you think to yourself "well, I'm going into sports, so..." and you instead take 80 for the next five years by shaving pills or something. You've now increased your "male-ness" by 20%, but are you still female?
What if I wanted to compete against females, so I got the surgery and found (read: bribed) a doctor who proscribed exactly one milligram of hormone per year for three years - I've had the surgery, I identify as a woman (as far as anyone knows) and I've been on hormone treatment for three years...
Well, I think the gist is this, though I could be mistaken:
- the major athletic differences between men and women are due to hormones. In a nutshell, men are basically juicin' all the time due to higher testosterone levels. Women have higher oestrogen levels and lower testosterone levels, though women do have some testosterone (and men have some oestrogen too I think). The major source of testosterone in dudes is the testes.
- so, preop trans women have hormones to shut down the testosterone production in the testes, which leaves them around where most women are. At the same time, they have some amount of oestrogen, but I don't know if that has any effect on athletic performance.
- postop trans women, not having testes, don't have elevated testosterone production anyway and have similar levels to most women, and presumably very similar athletic performance. Then they have a similar amount of oestrogen to most women from supplements.
The woman in this case is apparently post-op, so she can't stop taking pills and turn into the Hulk or something.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: - postop trans women, not having testes, don't have elevated testosterone production anyway and have similar levels to most women, and presumably very similar athletic performance.
The thing is: I used to quite like running at high school. I haven't had 100m time since, but when I was about 14-15, I got a fairly respectable time of 11.1 seconds. For a man that's not really noteworthy, but for a woman it would be insane. To put it in perspective Jeanette Kwakye came 6th in 100m finals at the 2008 Olympics with a time of 11.14 seconds. So as a teenager I could have potentially beaten 3 of the worlds 8 fastest women (though to Jeanette's credit she is only 5'3").
Now if I was to change my gender, firstly I wouldn't suddenly become 5'3", so I'd have that going for me, and with regular exercise I doubt I would lose much muscle even over 3 years, why should I? So I as an athlete would have gone from 'not noteworthy' to possible Olympic finalist, without really improving. To me that sounds unfair on the female athletes who didn't get to spend their entire youth making huge gains in height and muscle as a guy.
Smacks wrote: Now if I was to change my gender, firstly I wouldn't suddenly become 5'3" so I'd have that going for me, and with regular exercise I doubt I would lose much muscle even over 3 years, why should I? So I as an athlete would have gone from 'not noteworthy' to possible Olympic finalist, without really improving. To me that sounds unfair on the female athletes who didn't get to spend their entire youth making huge gains in height and muscle as a guy.
A) you would be changing your sex, not your gender. Loads of people in this thread seem to get the two confused and it's a very very important distinction in this kind of discussion.
B) You would lose muscle. I know you have this whole "but it's not really that big a change" thing going on, so you think you'll be able to keep the muscle, but it is a big change. Muscle growth and retention is dictated in part by hormones, so HRT will cause you to lose muscle mass.
C) since when was height an advantage in anything other than basketball? I know you're trying to make the point that "they're not quite the same, after all" but height isn't really a defining factor in most sports. In many it's a disadvantage, so saying 'she's taller because she's trans* so she shouldn't be allowed to compete' is silly.
Goliath wrote: A) you would be changing your sex, not your gender. Loads of people in this thread seem to get the two confused and it's a very very important distinction in this kind of discussion.
Smacks wrote: Now if I was to change my gender, firstly I wouldn't suddenly become 5'3" so I'd have that going for me, and with regular exercise I doubt I would lose much muscle even over 3 years, why should I? So I as an athlete would have gone from 'not noteworthy' to possible Olympic finalist, without really improving. To me that sounds unfair on the female athletes who didn't get to spend their entire youth making huge gains in height and muscle as a guy.
A) you would be changing your sex, not your gender. Loads of people in this thread seem to get the two confused and it's a very very important distinction in this kind of discussion.
B) You would lose muscle. I know you have this whole "but it's not really that big a change" thing going on, so you think you'll be able to keep the muscle, but it is a big change. Muscle growth and retention is dictated in part by hormones, so HRT will cause you to lose muscle mass.
C) since when was height an advantage in anything other than basketball? I know you're trying to make the point that "they're not quite the same, after all" but height isn't really a defining factor in most sports. In many it's a disadvantage, so saying 'she's taller because she's trans* so she shouldn't be allowed to compete' is silly.
A: Meh. The distinction might be useful but it's hardly universally accepted.
B: It will cause me to lose some muscle, but no one can really say how much. Will it be exactly enough or more that I correspond fairly as a woman? What if I'm also training, is maintaining muscle as a woman going to be as hard as building it in the first place? And if not then can you really say it's fair?
C: I think height can be an advantage because it increases the length of your stride. Obviously you need to have a corresponding build to take advantage of it. Lots of very tall people are a bit lanky which might not be an advantage, but if you look at someone like Usain Bolt who has a sprinters build, but is also 6'5" then: "Ohshi! He's way faster than everyone else!".
EDIT:
I found a picture of the woman in question:
She certainly doesn't look like she's short on muscle. Look at her stomach and thighs. I think she look very bulky and powerful for a girl. Are you really going to say 'that's all just hard work in the gym', and nothing whatsoever to do with 'used to be a man'?
Also found this video, of Caster Semenya, the SA athlete who turned out to be a hermaphrodite. Obviously it's not the same thing, but it's still interesting to see what a little testosterone can do...
There's a big difference between legally being a woman and genetically being a woman, can't crossfit rename the bracket from 'female' to 'XX Sex Chromosome'?. I have zero sympathy for the athlete in question and in all honesty, limited sympathy for anyone who's chief complaint is society not labelling them with the correct gender/adjective. South Park summed up my thoughts with their dolphinoplasty/negroplasty episode - I struggle to see the difference between someone wanting to be treated by society as the opposite gender and someone wanting to be treated by society as a dolphin (or a tall black basketball player).
For those who say there isn't much difference between a male weakened by hormone therapy and a female, what about snowboarding? Differences in male/female bone structure give males a large advantage on a snowboard - the angle of their hips (called the Q-angle) makes stability and landings more problematic for females.
Though saying that, I couldn't care less because I fail to see the value or importance of winning in any competitive sport. As far as I'm concerned, athletes should be able to have whatever surgery/implants/steroids they want - might make spectating more entertaining. It just winds me up when people go around pathetically suing others....
Lesebyst wrote: There's a big difference between legally being a woman and genetically being a woman, can't crossfit rename the bracket from 'female' to 'XX Sex Chromosome'?. I have zero sympathy for the athlete in question and in all honesty, limited sympathy for anyone who's chief complaint is society not labelling them with the correct gender/adjective. South Park summed up my thoughts with their dolphinoplasty/negroplasty episode - I struggle to see the difference between someone wanting to be treated by society as the opposite gender and someone wanting to be treated by society as a dolphin (or a tall black basketball player).
Well, the difference between the two is that this man has actually changed his sexuality in many ways through legitimate, proven medical methods. He was born as a woman in mind, and underwent surgery and years of hormone treatment to become a woman in body, and it's been reasonably effective.
Kyle, on the other hand, had Mr Garrison's testicles implanted in his knees so he could play basketball with the tall kids. Remember what the plastic surgeon said at the end? About how it was just cosmetic? That's the message. Changing how you look doesn't change who you are, not 'gender modification is wrong'. People actually did accept Kyle as a tall black kid.
That's ignoring the fact that South Park should never be referenced in a serious argument.
Well, the difference between the two is that this man has actually changed his sexuality in many ways through legitimate, proven medical methods. He was born as a woman in mind, and underwent surgery and years of hormone treatment to become a woman, and it's been quite effective.
It hasn't been effective though, it's just cosmetic. No real difference between having your penis split and pushed up inside you to having spacer material put in your knees. Unless they can 'repair' his Y sex chromosome he's still a male.
I haven't said gender modification is wrong, I'm just saying it's wrong to force others to accept you as what you aren't.
Well, the difference between the two is that this man has actually changed his sexuality in many ways through legitimate, proven medical methods. He was born as a woman in mind, and underwent surgery and years of hormone treatment to become a woman, and it's been quite effective.
It hasn't been effective though, it's just cosmetic. No real difference between having your penis split and pushed up inside you to having spacer material put in your knees. Unless they can 'repair' his Y sex chromosome he's still a male.
Physical changes will always be cosmetic. The important thing in all this is that she thinks of herself as a woman, so strongly in fact that she underwent pretty major procedures to make herself as close as physically possible. The difference between her and someone born as a female are entirely physical.
I haven't said gender modification is wrong, I'm just saying it's wrong to force others to accept you as what you aren't.
Why shouldn't we consider her female if that's what she wants to be considered as? Because of her genetics? That seems completely arbitrary and irrelevant in day to day life.
Lesebyst wrote: It's arbitrary and irrelevant until he/she wants special treatment such as being able to compete against people who are genetically female.
Why do genetics matter more than her actual physical attributes in this case?
Because genetics can make a difference in cases like this. The example I gave above for snowboarding would give a gender-reassigned female a noticeable advantage over her female peers. Being allowed to compete against them is blatantly a case of wanting special treatment.
Lesebyst wrote: Because genetics can make a difference in cases like this. The example I gave above for snowboarding would give a gender-reassigned female a noticeable advantage over her female peers.
Can being the operative word. As has been previously noted several times in the thread, gender reassigned people can compete in their preferred category providing they fulfill certain criteria in the most important sporting event in the world. Why shouldn't this woman be allowed to compete in this small competition when she would be able to compete in the Olympics as a woman?
Being allowed to compete against them is blatantly a case of wanting special treatment.
It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.
Why not just dispose of the whole concept of male/female events and allow them all to compete against each other? If you're going to allow people to pick their gender it makes a mockery of the system. Not that I care one way or another about competitive sport though.
It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.
I'll happily defend the rights of minorities, but I don't see why I should care one bit about a man not being able to compete against women in a competition if the organisers and/or other competitors don't think it's fair.
Lesebyst wrote: Why not just dispose of the whole concept of male/female events and allow them all to compete against each other? If you're going to allow people to pick their gender it makes a mockery of the system. Not that I care one way or another about competitive sport though.
It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.
I'll happily defend the rights of minorities, but I don't see why I should care one bit about a man not being able to compete against women in a competition if the organisers and/or other competitors don't think it's fair.
Except she's not a man; she also didn't pick her gender. Just like sexual orientation it's not actually a choice
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Except she's not a man; she also didn't pick her gender. Just like sexual orientation it's not actually a choice
Fine, replace 'man' with 'person with XY sex chromosomes'. Pandering to someone's delusion is not the same as accepting something which isn't a choice (sexual orientation, skin etc). I'm not saying they have chosen to be delusional, but I see comments from transsexual people, who say they have always felt as if they were a woman, to be a sign of a mental condition. How anybody can 'know' what it feels like to be the opposite gender is beyond me. Mutilate their bodies if that's what they want, but expecting the whole world to bend over backwards to accept their fantasy seems ridiculous. I also have no sympathy for religious people who complain when their religion is offended by other people's actions (ie same sex marriage, blasphemy etc), to me it's the same as getting pissy because the mean people won't let you compete against real women (oops I mean 'people with XX sex chromosomes') in a pointless sporting event.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered. And believe it or not. Those men going under hormone therapy are actually loosing muscles.
From the point at which they started hormone therapy, sure. But unless the man starts hormone therapy at puberty, he'll always have an unfair advantage over women who have always been women.
due to what? Increased bone density? Any increase in muscle brought about by being male is nullified by hormone replacement therapy.
This is completely untrue. Muscle doesn't just disappear when you start taking estrogen. Also, if you've ever been muscular, and lose it, it's a hell of a lot easier to get it back than it was to gain it in the first place. This coupled with postural / bone structure differences gives an unfair advantage to this competitor over women who have always been women.
Lesebyst wrote: Why not just dispose of the whole concept of male/female events and allow them all to compete against each other? If you're going to allow people to pick their gender it makes a mockery of the system. Not that I care one way or another about competitive sport though.
Double strawman.
We wont and shouldn't dispose of the system because the vast, vast, vast majority of people still identify as either male of female and so much of society is built upon the perception of what is male and what is female. We aren't just letting people pick their gender. That statement is deliberately ignorant of gender realignment of this sort.
It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.
I'll happily defend the rights of minorities, but I don't see why I should care one bit about a man not being able to compete against women in a competition if the organisers and/or other competitors don't think it's fair.
iproxtaco wrote: Double strawman.
We wont and shouldn't dispose of the system because the vast, vast, vast majority of people still identify as either male of female and so much of society is built upon the perception of what is male and what is female. We aren't just letting people pick their gender. That statement is deliberately ignorant of gender realignment of this sort.
What has gender identity got to do with whether or not males and females should compete together? My suggestion would prevent this from ever being an issue. Let mutant compete against mutant without gender getting in the way.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Except she's not a man; she also didn't pick her gender. Just like sexual orientation it's not actually a choice
Fine, replace 'man' with 'person with XY sex chromosomes'. Pandering to someone's delusion is not the same as accepting something which isn't a choice (sexual orientation, skin etc)
It's not someone's delusion, you not pandering to it, it's treating them as an equal. It's genuinely something they feel, that can't change it, they didn't choice to feel that way
. I'm not saying they have chosen to be delusional, but I see comments from transsexual people, who say they have always felt as if they were a woman, to be a sign of a mental condition
100 years ago being homosexual was viewed as being a mental illness
. How anybody can 'know' what it feels like to be the opposite gender is beyond me. Mutilate their bodies if that's what they want, but expecting the whole world to bend over backwards to accept their fantasy seems ridiculous. I also have no sympathy for religious people who complain when their religion is offended by other people's actions (ie same sex marriage, blasphemy etc), to me it's the same as getting pissy because the mean people won't let you compete against real women (oops I mean 'people with XX sex chromosomes') in a pointless sporting event.
You don't have to "bend over backwards" to accept who they are as a person. It's not ridiculous in the slightest.
and she is a woman; regardless of how you feel about the issue it's what she is. Good to see religion doesn't have a monopoly on bigotry
How is the belief that the feelings you are experiencing belong to the other gender anything other than a delusion? Unless you have a pretty vivid recollection of a previous incarnation you cannot know how a gender is supposed to feel.
I would employ a transsexual person and afford them the same rights as anyone else. Let them use whichever toilet they want or receive letters addressed to Miss instead of Mr, I couldn't care less. However I don't see the ability to enter a privately organised competition as a right - enabling someone to take an organisation to court because they think your entry in a competition is akin to cheating is pandering to their delusion!
Lesebyst wrote: How is the belief that the feelings you are experiencing belong to the other gender anything other than a delusion?
Because male and female brain structures are actually different in some non-trivial ways. Seriously, do some basic research here: there's really no controversy (other than whiny bigots) over the fact that you can have a brain/body mismatch.
Unless you have a pretty vivid recollection of a previous incarnation you cannot know how a gender is supposed to feel.
Not true at all. Your brain has an internal "map" of how your body is supposed to work. For example, if someone loses a leg in an accident their brain can still think that the leg is there, feel "pain" coming from it, etc. In the case of gender issues you get the brain "map" of one sex, but something goes wrong in development and you end up with a body that doesn't match the "map".
Also, it's not necessarily a perfect understanding of exactly how the other gender is supposed to feel. There's also an overwhelming feeling that something is wrong with your body, even if you can't describe exactly how it should feel.
enabling someone to take an organisation to court because they think your entry in a competition is akin to cheating is pandering to their delusion!
And calling it a "delusion" is incredibly ignorant and offensive.
Well, I think that able-bodied cis-people shouldn't be allowed an opinion, because they haven't suffered enough to have a clue what they're talking about.
See? I can make sweeping generalisations too.
However, get this straight in your heads.
A trans-woman is a woman. Hence, trans-woman. A trans-man is a man. Hence the name trans-man.
Not trans-hybrid. Not trans-freak.
Even a non-operative trans-woman who has a penis and never intends to undergo sex reassignment surgery is a woman.
It's not about "wanting to be perceived as". It's not about crossdressing. A pre-op trans-man in a skirt is crossdressing, just like a cis-man in a skirt is crossdressing. It's about not having to be constantly reminded about the fact that their body is flat-out wrong by people who don't understand.
Lesebyst. Your genetics say you're a fairly intelligent person. Why do you insist on trying to prove them wrong with this idiotic bs you keep spouting? I dunno, maybe you're just trapped in a smart person's body. I suggest you see a counsellor.
All of these things are completely irrelevant to the discussion over whether Chloie Johnson can get money out of CrossFit or not. Somehow, they seem to have taken over the whole thing. Should Johnson be allowed to compete with other women? Hell yes, she should. There is so much conflicting evidence about the relative physical capabilities of men and women out there that it's all bunk anyway. For example;
Excerpt 1 wrote:Kutin deadlifted a staggering 209.4 pounds (94.9 kilograms) and squatted slightly less [source: Zeveloff]. To put that Herculean feat into perspective, the New Jersey elementary school[girl] successfully squatted around 215 percent of her body weight -- the same body weight percentage a 180-pound (81.6-kilogram) adult man could likely squat
Excerpt 2 wrote:Acknowledging this gender difference doesn't imply that weight-lifting women can't combat this bit of biological determinism and beef up their biceps; instead, men simply have a head start in that department thanks to their elevated levels of testosterone. The sex hormone has anabolic effects, meaning it promotes muscle development. Secreted by the pituitary gland, testosterone binds to skeletal fiber cells and stimulates the growth of proteins, the building blocks of meaty muscles [source: Roundy]. At the same time, however, testosterone also may shave off men's strength for the long haul.
See? You can use statistical manipulation to prove anything.
CrossFit determined that competitors in the event had to compete in the gender of their birth.
...
"The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women," according to the letter from CrossFit's lawyer sent in October.
Seems reasonable...
"(Jonnson) doesn't have an advantage over other women. She's been on estrogen for such a long time," he said about his client.
...
McCoy said that CrossFit should change its rules to be more like the International Olympic Committee, which allows transgender athletes to compete in their identified gender after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery.
I'm surprised by this... can they compete immediately after undergoing the surgery for the Olympics? Is there a waiting period?
Anyway, people's bodies and lives are their own, but that doesn't mean they're going to have the right to compete in a controlled sport that already bans hundreds (thousands?) of things from entering competitors' bodies... you have the right to be transgender, but you don't necessarily have the right to compete in an event if you're, say, a male taking extra testosterone... or in this case, someone who was originally male but is undergoing therapy to lessen their testosterone.
I see those as extremely similar and one is clearly banned (taking extra testosterone). If this case were opposite, and a woman wanted to compete against men, they would be taking testosterone therapy and thus would already be disqualified.
...to use another example, you can smoke marujuana legally in some states (at least, according to state law) but whether you can compete in a sport while under the influence of it (or alchohol, or anything) is entirely up to that sport's governing body.
This person can do Crossfit training all they like... but to compete in a Crossfit competition they will have to follow the rules of the event, and if their therapy does not meet the rules then they can't compete. I don't see any right being violated at all... again, any more than athletes not being allowed to take extra testosterone, this person would've started out with extra testosterone and thus can reasonably be barred from competing.
"(Jonnson) doesn't have an advantage over other women. She's been on estrogen for such a long time," he said about his client. ... McCoy said that CrossFit should change its rules to be more like the International Olympic Committee, which allows transgender athletes to compete in their identified gender after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery.
I'm surprised by this... can they compete immediately after undergoing the surgery for the Olympics? Is there a waiting period?
Actually, since May 17th 2004, they would if the Transgender athlete in question had met three criteria. 1. They must have had gender reassignment surgery 2. They must have legal recognition of their assigned gender 3. They must have at least two years of hormone therapy
So looking at the case, she would be able to compete in the Olympics, so I can see her winning this one.
Thanks for that... however, obviously the Olympics are not Crossfit. Major League Baseball bans different things, and has different penalties, than the NFL. This is going to be up to each individual sport / governing body and while it is interesting that the Olympics allows it, it doesn't really mean anything regarding whether Crossfit has to (imo).
Also, just to use the opposite example for a moment as I think it's clearer- can a woman, who has undergone surgery to become a man, compete in male sports that ban the taking of extra testosterone (are there any that don't?) even though the person is now on a steady testosterone regimen?
I would say no, those sports can reasonably ban that person from competing. Because where do you draw the line... can a man who has low testosterone take extra testosterone to get up to the average? Does a man with abnormally high testosterone naturally need to take something to make it less?
The easiest thing for a sport is simply to say "no extra testosterone". This is not a civil rights issue, it is a private competition. You're allowed to take extra testosterone for certain reasons in the U.S... but you can't compete in most professional sports if you do.
Similarly here, if a person was originally a male there is the issue of testosterone to consider... it's not quite as cut and dry as the opposite (having to take extra testosterone), but it's still something I think sports governing bodies can reasonably regulate. Not at all affecting a person's civil rights, but rather, what they allow to be taken by competitors in their sport. Thousands of things are already regulated... I see this as no different.
Not true at all. Your brain has an internal "map" of how your body is supposed to work. For example, if someone loses a leg in an accident their brain can still think that the leg is there, feel "pain" coming from it, etc. In the case of gender issues you get the brain "map" of one sex, but something goes wrong in development and you end up with a body that doesn't match the "map".
Is there any evidence of this mis-matched brain map you refer to? I'm aware that sexuality can be plotted on a sliding scale between 'male' and 'female', is there proof for your claims?
Not true at all. Your brain has an internal "map" of how your body is supposed to work. For example, if someone loses a leg in an accident their brain can still think that the leg is there, feel "pain" coming from it, etc. In the case of gender issues you get the brain "map" of one sex, but something goes wrong in development and you end up with a body that doesn't match the "map".
Is there any evidence of this mis-matched brain map you refer to? I'm aware that sexuality can be plotted on a sliding scale between 'male' and 'female', is there proof for your claims?
Not true at all. Your brain has an internal "map" of how your body is supposed to work. For example, if someone loses a leg in an accident their brain can still think that the leg is there, feel "pain" coming from it, etc. In the case of gender issues you get the brain "map" of one sex, but something goes wrong in development and you end up with a body that doesn't match the "map".
Is there any evidence of this mis-matched brain map you refer to? I'm aware that sexuality can be plotted on a sliding scale between 'male' and 'female', is there proof for your claims?
The results show that when individuals of Sex A—despite having the chromosomes, gonads and sex hormones of that sex—insist that they're really Sex B, the gender-affected parts of the brain typically more closely resemble what's usually seen with Sex B.
Lesebyst. Your genetics say you're a fairly intelligent person. Why do you insist on trying to prove them wrong with this idiotic bs you keep spouting? I dunno, maybe you're just trapped in a smart person's body. I suggest you see a counsellor.
Fairly? That hurts. Joking aside, just because I fail to see mismatched gender as anything other than a delusion doesn't mean you should resort to personal insults. It's better to win someone over through reason than flippant comments! I'm not a bigot, I can change my mind if there's evidence to support it.
Should Johnson be allowed to compete with other women? Hell yes, she should. There is so much conflicting evidence about the relative physical capabilities of men and women out there that it's all bunk anyway.
There's nothing conflicting about the evidence the q-angle has on the ability of a woman (XX variety) to snowboard. It's the only sport I know anything about, but I have a hard time believing male dominance in other physical sporting activities is down to nurture rather than nature.
Lesebyst wrote: Is there any evidence of this mis-matched brain map you refer to?
There's no clear and indisputable evidence yet, because it's a subject that isn't all that well studied right now and there's a lot of research to do. But even if it isn't specifically a problem with the mapping aspect there's some research that strongly suggests various brain structure differences, and a map problem fits very well with first-hand experiences of something being "wrong".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lesebyst wrote: That hurts. Joking aside, just because I fail to see mismatched gender as anything other than a delusion doesn't mean you should resort to personal insults.
Oh, it certainly does, just like we'd resort to personal insults if a racist started ranting about offensive things.
I'm not a bigot, I can change my mind if there's evidence to support it.
Yes you are. Want to stop being called a bigot? Stop using insulting terms like "delusion".
It's the only sport I know anything about, but I have a hard time believing male dominance in other physical sporting activities is down to nurture rather than nature.
Sigh. Remember the part where taking female hormones negates the former advantage of starting with a male body?
The results show that when individuals of Sex A—despite having the chromosomes, gonads and sex hormones of that sex—insist that they're really Sex B, the gender-affected parts of the brain typically more closely resemble what's usually seen with Sex B.
I guess that is an extension of what I said about gender being on a sliding scale - thanks for the link, an interesting read. Are transsexual people those who are at the halfway mark then? That's the sort of article which should be linked immediately when people express a doubt at the validity of the transsexual 'condition'.
I'm still adamant that private competitions should be allowed to restrict entry to people who they think would have an unfair advantage because I do think the male and female body is different, but I'll stop associating transsexuals with in-denial homosexuals and the mentally ill. I can accept it is wrong to do so, but hey, blame it on a lack of mainstream transsexual awareness?
Would it be considered acceptable to undergo elective surgery in order to meet qualifications as being legally handicapped, then decide compete in the Special Olympics?
Say an Olympic gold metal runner decides to amputate his arm, he's now legally handicapped and decides he wants to race the mentally challenged or those that are truly developmentally impaired from birth. According to a lot of posters here as long as he truly believes he was "a one armed man trapped in a two armed man's body" it'd be perfectly ok.
The gender role strawman gets very old, great those athletes feel male or female inside or if they want to wear dress or pants, who cares. It's not about denying their inner feelings, it's a judgment call about what the organizers believe is a fair standard for establishing proper sportsmanship and what they view as fair competition.
If they want to run a blood or tissue test for sex determination and it comes up "dude positive" and they decide that's their base line for determining the standard then it's their call. Likewise if they want to ban athletes for steroids, growth hormones or doping that's also their call. It doesn't limit those athletes from juicing all they want at home, it just prevents them from entering events with that sportsmanship standard set in place. The transgendered athletes aren't suddenly barred from running or lifting weights etc, they are free to do what they want in their own lives just like the juicers can keep lifting weights, ultimately their choice to go under the knife is just like sticking a needle in their arm IT'S A CHOICE and as a result of that choice it impacts their ability to compete in events that have a sex based competition standard. They aren't being denied the right to compete by that standard, they are only being told what group they are allowed to compete against. (Not barred which is actual discrimination).
Sometimes the choices we make end up closing off certain aspects of our lives, or limit our ability to pursue a particular career. If I poke out my eye I can't go and be a jet fighter pilot because I no longer qualify to the air forces standard, I might be able to get a job flying my own private plane, but not a jet fighter. Maybe it's unfair but that's life.
Lesebyst wrote: Are transsexual people those who are at the halfway mark then?
No, they're someone who is gender X but has Y body. They generally* don't intend to stay at some halfway point between male and female, the end goal is to get as close as modern technology allows to having the exact same body as someone who was born that way. If they exist in a "halfway" state temporarily it's only because the changes take time.
*Non-binary gender/no gender/etc people exist, but that's a separate subject.
Provide evidence like Cyporiean did rather than have a little strop. Stropping gets you nowhere, counter arguments win the day.
I did give you a counter-argument. I just also criticized your use of incredibly offensive language along with that argument.
Please, tell me all about how taking female hormones gives men child-bearing hips.
Even if this difference does exist that's a very narrow attribute to be looking at, and one that isn't necessarily relevant in every sport. For example, the incident in the OP seems to be about muscle strength, not bone structure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Would it be considered acceptable to undergo cosmetic surgery in order to meet qualifications as being legally handicapped, then decide compete in the Special Olympics?
Can we please stick to things that actually happen in the real world?
Say an Olympic gold metal runner decides to amputate his arm, he's now legally handicapped and decides he wants to race the mentally challenged or those that are truly developmentally impaired from birth.
Sigh. You do realize that many "handicapped sports" events include people who lost limbs in accidents, right?
The gender role strawman gets very old, great those athletes feel male or female inside, who cares. It's not about denying their inner feelings, it's a judgment call about what the organizers believe is a fair standard for establishing proper sportsmanship and what they view as fair competition.
And the point here is that there isn't really a credible argument that a difference exists at all, once a person has been on the appropriate hormones long enough. Remember, the rules for the olympics would allow her to compete as a woman, and I don't think you can really argue that they're settling for a low standard of fair competition.
ultimately their choice to go under the knife is just like sticking a needle in their arm IT'S A CHOICE and as a result of that choice it impacts their ability to compete in events that have a sex based competition standard.
It's not really a choice, just like it isn't much of a choice to accept treatment for a serious disease.
stanman wrote: Would it be considered acceptable to undergo cosmetic surgery in order to meet qualifications as being legally handicapped, then decide compete in the Special Olympics?
Can we please stick to things that actually happen in the real world?
People arguing over mechanical advantage of being handicapped is real world, see the blade runner. The guy missing both his lower legs had full body athletes complaining he was better due to the mechanics his replacement limbs offered. While most people wouldn't undergo such an operation it's is entirely possible that a few might pursue elective surgeries if it gives them an edge.
There are people that truly desire to voluntarily amputate their own limbs because they dislike the look or feel of their body and believe that removing certain parts will make them whole. It's fairly rare but it exists. There are also people that practice extreme body modification to add implants or even modify their bone structure to become what they feel and see and being a more complete or whole human being. It can be looked at much the same as people who undergo gender modification surgery.
Say an Olympic gold metal runner decides to amputate his arm, he's now legally handicapped and decides he wants to race the mentally challenged or those that are truly developmentally impaired from birth.
Sigh. You do realize that many "handicapped sports" events include people who lost limbs in accidents, right?
Sigh. You do realize that "handicapped sports" are not the same as the "Special Olympics" correct?
stanman wrote: Would it be considered acceptable to undergo cosmetic surgery in order to meet qualifications as being legally handicapped, then decide compete in the Special Olympics?
stanman wrote: Would it be considered acceptable to undergo cosmetic surgery in order to meet qualifications as being legally handicapped, then decide compete in the Special Olympics?
Can we please stick to things that actually happen in the real world?
People arguing over mechanical advantage of being handicapped is real world, see the blade runner. The guy missing both his lower legs had full body athletes complaining he was better due to the mechanics his replacement limbs offered. While most people wouldn't undergo such an operation it's is entirely possible that a few might pursue elective surgeries if it gives them an edge.
You mean Oscar Pitorius who in currently on trial for supposedly murdering his girlfriend
Say an Olympic gold metal runner decides to amputate his arm, he's now legally handicapped and decides he wants to race the mentally challenged or those that are truly developmentally impaired from birth.
Sigh. You do realize that many "handicapped sports" events include people who lost limbs in accidents, right?
You do realize that "handicapped sports" are not the same as the "Special Olympics" correct?
Then on what grounds would he qualify for the "Special" Olympics since it was a injury not mental handicap they suffered from
Really? Who forced you to get hormone treatments, specifically an increase in estrogen? A lot of men have wide hips. Why didn't you just get testosterone replacement therapy?
trexmeyer wrote: Really? Who forced you to get hormone treatments, specifically an increase in estrogen?
Who forced you to get treatment for cancer? Who forced you to get a replacement leg when you lost one in a car crash? Don't act like this is just a voluntary thing like choosing to dye your hair a new color.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: You mean Oscar Pitorius who in currently on trial for supposedly murdering his girlfriend
And guess what: he didn't voluntarily chop off his own legs so that he could compete in an "easier" event and dominate. He has nothing to do with your absurd hypothetical situation of a person injuring themselves so they can gain access to competitions that are meant for people with less inherent ability.
You do realize that "handicapped sports" are not the same as the "Special Olympics" correct?
If you're going to limit the discussion to a single specific event involving people with mental disabilities, not physical ones, then what does it have to do with the issue of inherent physical advantages and fair competition?
iproxtaco wrote: Double strawman.
We wont and shouldn't dispose of the system because the vast, vast, vast majority of people still identify as either male of female and so much of society is built upon the perception of what is male and what is female. We aren't just letting people pick their gender. That statement is deliberately ignorant of gender realignment of this sort.
What has gender identity got to do with whether or not males and females should compete together?
You tell me, you brought it up.
My suggestion would prevent this from ever being an issue. Let mutant compete against mutant without gender getting in the way.
'Mutant people'.
And we wonder why LGBT people resort to parades, protests and lawsuits to get their point across.
She's not a man.
Her genetics say otherwise, stop being obtuse
I'm not being obtuse. She's not a man. She doesn't identify as one and has changed her biology to reflect as such.
trexmeyer wrote: Really? Who forced you to get hormone treatments, specifically an increase in estrogen?
Who forced you to get treatment for cancer? Who forced you to get a replacement leg when you lost one in a car crash? Don't act like this is just a voluntary thing like choosing to dye your hair a new color.
stanman wrote: Would it be considered acceptable to undergo cosmetic surgery in order to meet qualifications as being legally handicapped, then decide compete in the Special Olympics?
Can we please stick to things that actually happen in the real world?
People arguing over mechanical advantage of being handicapped is real world, see the blade runner. The guy missing both his lower legs had full body athletes complaining he was better due to the mechanics his replacement limbs offered. While most people wouldn't undergo such an operation it's is entirely possible that a few might pursue elective surgeries if it gives them an edge.
You mean Oscar Pitorius who in currently on trial for supposedly murdering his girlfriend
Say an Olympic gold metal runner decides to amputate his arm, he's now legally handicapped and decides he wants to race the mentally challenged or those that are truly developmentally impaired from birth.
Sigh. You do realize that many "handicapped sports" events include people who lost limbs in accidents, right?
You do realize that "handicapped sports" are not the same as the "Special Olympics" correct?
Then on what grounds would he qualify for the "Special" Olympics since it was a injury not mental handicap they suffered from
Just because he would qualify as "legally handicapped" because of a surgery does not mean he should be treated the same as an individual born with severe down's syndrome or cerebral palsy. He would be attempting to use a legal classification of handicapped in order to be grouped in with individuals who were genetically handicapped since birth.
Just because one has the same legal classification it does not mean that it places them genetically in the same category. Both are handicapped, but the Olympic athlete would not be handicapped by his gene structure, but rather due to choice. It works that way with transgender athletes, they are a different male/female by a legal classification as the result of a surgery, they were not born genetically to the gender they are ascribing to.
trexmeyer wrote: Really? Who forced you to get hormone treatments, specifically an increase in estrogen?
Who forced you to get treatment for cancer? Who forced you to get a replacement leg when you lost one in a car crash? Don't act like this is just a voluntary thing like choosing to dye your hair a new color.
I find it interesting that we treat it like a physical condition rather than attempting to correct the belief that you're not the gender you think you are. Not saying it's right or wrong, just interesting.
My suggestion would prevent this from ever being an issue. Let mutant compete against mutant without gender getting in the way.
'Mutant people'.
And we wonder why LGBT people resort to parades, protests and lawsuits to get their point across.
I was using mutant flippantly to describe professional athletes of both sexes, not transsexuals. I would be more in favour of watching sports if the participants were allowed to do whatever they wanted to win (gene therapy and body modifications included).
trexmeyer wrote: Really? Who forced you to get hormone treatments, specifically an increase in estrogen?
Who forced you to get treatment for cancer? Who forced you to get a replacement leg when you lost one in a car crash? Don't act like this is just a voluntary thing like choosing to dye your hair a new color.
I find it interesting that we treat it like a physical condition rather than attempting to correct the belief that you're not the gender you think you are. Not saying it's right or wrong, just interesting.
It's not really all that interesting. Psychology tried for hundreds of years to 'cure' transgenderism by treating the mind, it just doesn't work. The most you can manage is teaching someone to cope without becoming completely self-destructive using mental tricks to divert the inherent frustration and anguish that being transgender causes.
It's not really all that interesting. Psychology tried for hundreds of years to 'cure' transgenderism by treating the mind, it just doesn't work. The most you can manage is teaching someone to cope without becoming completely self-destructive using mental tricks to divert the inherent frustration and anguish that being transgender causes.
We do it to people with other conditions. Consider depression. I've never met someone with depression who, even when diligently taking meds and counseling and all of that, is really "right".
My suggestion would prevent this from ever being an issue. Let mutant compete against mutant without gender getting in the way.
'Mutant people'.
And we wonder why LGBT people resort to parades, protests and lawsuits to get their point across.
I was using mutant flippantly to describe professional athletes of both sexes, not transsexuals. I would be more in favour of watching sports if the participants were allowed to do whatever they wanted to win (gene therapy and body modifications included).
That just makes competition even more biased in favor of those, be it individuals or countries, who have the most money. It'd more fair to let those few transgender people just compete based on certain conditions, like the ones the Olympics already have in place.
It's not really all that interesting. Psychology tried for hundreds of years to 'cure' transgenderism by treating the mind, it just doesn't work. The most you can manage is teaching someone to cope without becoming completely self-destructive using mental tricks to divert the inherent frustration and anguish that being transgender causes.
We do it to people with other conditions. Consider depression. I've never met someone with depression who, even when diligently taking meds and counseling and all of that, is really "right".
I include myself in that anecdote.
Similarly, even transpeople who go all the way through with full gender reassignment are never quite 'right', as you put it. Sadly, there is no magic bullet. This is one of the reasons that transpeople object to being described as ill. Sickness can be cured, but there are no genies, no injections, no jusenkyo that can change body or mind to fit each other perfectly.
I'm taking fluoxetine to help manage my mental state and keep me from spiking suicidal. You?
(You don't really have to tell me, I'm mostly trying to foster a sense of comradeship).
We do it to people with other conditions. Consider depression. I've never met someone with depression who, even when diligently taking meds and counseling and all of that, is really "right".
I include myself in that anecdote.
I don't follow, depression can be cured surely? They're not right during treatment, but after they can be. I know several people (myself included) who were diagnosed with depression who are now 'right'. In all cases the drugs didn't help (other than to replace unhappiness with uncaring) but counselling sure did.
We do it to people with other conditions. Consider depression. I've never met someone with depression who, even when diligently taking meds and counseling and all of that, is really "right".
I include myself in that anecdote.
I don't follow, depression can be cured surely? They're not right during treatment, but after they can be. I know several people (myself included) who were diagnosed with depression who are now 'right'. In all cases the drugs didn't help (other than to replace unhappiness with uncaring) but counselling sure did.
It depends on the specific disorder. Some things can be cured. Others can be managed. Counseling only helps if the root cause of the depression is something that can be "fixed."
daedalus wrote: I find it interesting that we treat it like a physical condition rather than attempting to correct the belief that you're not the gender you think you are. Not saying it's right or wrong, just interesting.
That's because a person's gender is an important part of their identity. Even setting aside the question of whether it's possible to make a transgender person happy with being their birth gender it would involve re-writing a core element of who they are. There's no reason to even consider getting into that kind of ethical question when correcting the physical problem is straightforward and effective. The only justification for the psychology approach is ideologically-motivated nonsense about being a "real" man/woman.
daedalus wrote: We do it to people with other conditions. Consider depression. I've never met someone with depression who, even when diligently taking meds and counseling and all of that, is really "right".
I include myself in that anecdote.
Two huge differences here:
1) Depression (usually) can't be fixed by physical changes. It has to be treated as a mental issue because that's the only way to do it.
2) "I have depression" is rarely a part of a person's identity, or at least a part of their identity that they want to keep. A person with depression thinks "this sucks, I want to get rid of it". A transgender person thinks "I am gender X and am happy with it, I want to make my body match it".
1) Depression (usually) can't be fixed by physical changes. It has to be treated as a mental issue because that's the only way to do it.
2) "I have depression" is rarely a part of a person's identity, or at least a part of their identity that they want to keep. A person with depression thinks "this sucks, I want to get rid of it". A transgender person thinks "I am gender X and am happy with it, I want to make my body match it".
You're wrong on both counts. What do you think drugs do? Do you really not think they induce a physical change?
trexmeyer wrote: You're wrong on both counts. What do you think drugs do? Do you really not think they induce a physical change?
Sigh. You know perfectly well what I mean by "physical change". The fact that you change brain function with drugs that have a physical effect doesn't mean it's the same thing as, say, curing depression by fixing a broken bone.
daedalus wrote: I find it interesting that we treat it like a physical condition rather than attempting to correct the belief that you're not the gender you think you are. Not saying it's right or wrong, just interesting.
That's because a person's gender is an important part of their identity. Even setting aside the question of whether it's possible to make a transgender person happy with being their birth gender it would involve re-writing a core element of who they are. There's no reason to even consider getting into that kind of ethical question when correcting the physical problem is straightforward and effective. The only justification for the psychology approach is ideologically-motivated nonsense about being a "real" man/woman.
Colour me an idealist. *sigh* I would love it if I could just be made to be happy somehow with the body I was born with. I wouldn't choose to breed with it even then (it's not a great body. Short-sighted, photophobic, horrendous skin conditions... eh), but if someone could wave a magic wand and make me a 'real man', that would be almost as good as someone turning me into a cis-woman to me. Then again, I've been told I have self esteem issues.
Two huge differences here:
1) Depression (usually) can't be fixed by physical changes. It has to be treated as a mental issue because that's the only way to do it.
2) "I have depression" is rarely a part of a person's identity, or at least a part of their identity that they want to keep. A person with depression thinks "this sucks, I want to get rid of it". A transgender person thinks "I am gender X and am happy with it, I want to make my body match it".
Nice use of usually, depression is one of the biggest effects my transgenderism has on my life.
Peregrine wrote: 2) "I have depression" is rarely a part of a person's identity, or at least a part of their identity that they want to keep. A person with depression thinks "this sucks, I want to get rid of it". A transgender person thinks "I am gender X and am happy with it, I want to make my body match it".
It can take a while to agree to counselling/medication if you're depressed, speaking from experience "this sucks I want to get rid of it" is far from the first response.
trexmeyer wrote: You're wrong on both counts. What do you think drugs do? Do you really not think they induce a physical change?
Sigh. You know perfectly well what I mean by "physical change". The fact that you change brain function with drugs that have a physical effect doesn't mean it's the same thing as, say, curing depression by fixing a broken bone.
Peregrine wrote: 2) "I have depression" is rarely a part of a person's identity, or at least a part of their identity that they want to keep. A person with depression thinks "this sucks, I want to get rid of it". A transgender person thinks "I am gender X and am happy with it, I want to make my body match it".
It can take a while to agree to counselling/medication if you're depressed, speaking from experience "this sucks I want to get rid of it" is far from the first response.
And in many cases the person will self destruct and attempt suicide long before they agree to counselling or medication. All you want to do when depressed is sleep and never wake up.
I have a negative stand on the idea of transgenders competing but that is because I want to see a fair and level playing field for women athletes.
Take an adult male who "transitions" fully to female and then decides to compete in sports. No matter how much estrogen he doses with, he'll always have the advantage of developing as a male throughout childhood and puberty. His muscles will be denser, skin tougher, and bones thicker than any woman he'd be competing with. He'll also have the uniquely male advantage of developing a more powerful physique at the upper end of strength training. You just can't take all that away by cutting off his sac and dosing him with girl-juice.
Women's sports were originally set up so that they could compete against one another without having an unfair playing field against male competitors. It's denigrating to expect women's athletics competition to be co-opted as a means to provide venues for eunuchs to "finally have a shot at winning something" or as a method of self-validation.
Lesebyst wrote: It can take a while to agree to counselling/medication if you're depressed, speaking from experience "this sucks I want to get rid of it" is far from the first response.
No, not right away, but the point is it's a pretty unambiguously bad thing. It's an especially bad thing that sabotages your ability to fix the problem, but even at your worst I doubt you're thinking "this is great, if only I could fix everything else getting in the way of enjoying my depression". Contrast this with a transgender person who can be perfectly happy with their gender identity and just want to make the rest of their world support it correctly. It's the same reason why we rejected the idea of considering homosexuality a mental illness to be treated.
How so? There's a very obvious difference between fixing physical problems/injuries and fixing mental problems, even if your brain is still a physical object with chemical balances and stuff. You can nitpick the philosophical question of "what is a brain" all you want, but I think we all know there's an important functional difference between giving someone drugs to treat a mental illness and fixing a broken bone.
Furyou Miko wrote:
Similarly, even transpeople who go all the way through with full gender reassignment are never quite 'right', as you put it. Sadly, there is no magic bullet. This is one of the reasons that transpeople object to being described as ill. Sickness can be cured, but there are no genies, no injections, no jusenkyo that can change body or mind to fit each other perfectly.
I'm taking fluoxetine to help manage my mental state and keep me from spiking suicidal. You?
(You don't really have to tell me, I'm mostly trying to foster a sense of comradeship).
Honestly, I haven't really found anything medical that helps. I spent a good 10 years or so of my life trying about everything doctors or I could come up with. Most things made me more erratic or more wrong than otherwise. The best solution I've found has been a cadre of friends that I see weekly that have known me for years, who know and understand the issue as best anyone can. They keep me pretty grounded.
Other than that, I try to keep myself so busy with hobbies, work, and literally any sort of distraction I can find that I don't worry about myself directly. I've literally read volumes of encyclopedias before. Idle thoughts are usually the most dangerous. It's under control for the most part, though there's always that lingering thought in the back of my head that I know I could just kill myself if I decide there was ever a reason to.
This is probably getting out of scope for this topic though.
Lesebyst wrote:
I don't follow, depression can be cured surely? They're not right during treatment, but after they can be. I know several people (myself included) who were diagnosed with depression who are now 'right'. In all cases the drugs didn't help (other than to replace unhappiness with uncaring) but counselling sure did.
If there's something to cure. I don't want to go into details, but my issues would require a time machine to fix. A lobotomy might work also, but that's not really cool anymore.
Breotan wrote: It's denigrating to expect women's athletics competition to be co-opted as a means to provide venues for eunuchs to "finally have a shot at winning something" or as a method of self-validation.
So do you actually have any credible evidence of people being so desperate for validation that they're willing to live full-time as the opposite gender, undergo surgery and hormones to change their appearance, etc? That seems to be a rather extreme level of effort when most athletes aren't getting very much fame or wealth from their victories.
2) "I have depression" is rarely a part of a person's identity, or at least a part of their identity that they want to keep. A person with depression thinks "this sucks, I want to get rid of it". A transgender person thinks "I am gender X and am happy with it, I want to make my body match it".
Your other points are fair, but if your depression is part of your identity, rather, caused by your identity, then you're stuck.
If there's something to cure. I don't want to go into details, but my issues would require a time machine to fix. A lobotomy might work also, but that's not really cool anymore.
This sounds like a strange thing to say, but have you tried taking a philosophy course? It's been field tested in Sweden as an alternative to drugs and afaik was quite successful. Every case is different though, just throwing it out there as a suggestion.
This sounds like a strange thing to say, but have you tried taking a philosophy course? It's been field tested in Sweden as an alternative to drugs and afaik was quite successful. Every case is different though, just throwing it out there as a suggestion.
Not sure if philosophy means the same things over there (I assume so), but I have. I have a philosophy minor in fact. It helps cope, but that's about it.
Breotan wrote: I have a negative stand on the idea of transgenders competing but that is because I want to see a fair and level playing field for women athletes.
Take an adult male who "transitions" fully to female and then decides to compete in sports. No matter how much estrogen he doses with, he'll always have the advantage of developing as a male throughout childhood and puberty. His muscles will be denser, skin tougher, and bones thicker than any woman he'd be competing with. He'll also have the uniquely male advantage of developing a more powerful physique at the upper end of strength training. You just can't take all that away by cutting off his sac and dosing him with girl-juice.
Women's sports were originally set up so that they could compete against one another without having an unfair playing field against male competitors. It's denigrating to expect women's athletics competition to be co-opted as a means to provide venues for eunuchs to "finally have a shot at winning something" or as a method of self-validation.
I'd say your negative stance goes beyond athletic regulations, calling transgendered women 'he' and 'eunuch' implying such.
We're not talking about a man in a dress, we're talking about people who have undergone major procedures, often both chemical and physical to 'correct' their body.
That said I'm no authority on the issue and I have less sympathy for the lady in question for her huge financial settlement goal, as I always do in 'moral' legal cases though really it was no doubt her lawyer who brought up the idea.
How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
I think people have a right to call themselves whatever they want, but I don't think people should get angry when the public doesn't necessarily recognize them as such. You want to be a man or a women, cat, bat, vampire, alien.....fine. Just don't expect everyone to go along with it.
"In a thousand years there will be no men and women, just spankers"
Andrew1975 wrote: How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
This is not relevant to a transgendered woman or man, only that they can make the transition and live as the people they wish to be recognized as, I see no harm in that, other people should mind their own and tend to their own business and allow people who aren't hurting other people to just get on with living as they wish to live.
This is an interesting dilemma - do you definitely disadvantage trans folk by not allowing them to compete, or do you potentially disadvantage cis athletes by allowing them to compete?
It doesn't look like the science is settled on whether transitioning gives a physical advantage, unless I'm not googling hard enough. Some are saying it doesn't if transitioning before puberty, some say it might if after puberty, etc.
So I’d go with the potential disadvantage over the definite one, but I am oversimplifying the issue
Smacks wrote: I wonder if they could restrict her on doping grounds. She claims to be woman, but it would be easy to show that she had been on high levels of testosterone for years (when she was a man). If you could show that for any other woman that would clearly be grounds for disqualification.
Generally anti-doping rules only apply to drug use within a fairly small period of time relative to competition. Additionally, medical necessity is generally considered to be an exemption, in most cases this applies steroids and the like that are proscribed to treat an illness but it could be considered to encompass having previously been male.
She certainly doesn't look like she's short on muscle. Look at her stomach and thighs. I think she look very bulky and powerful for a girl. Are you really going to say 'that's all just hard work in the gym', and nothing whatsoever to do with 'used to be a man'?
Look up pictures of female bodybuilders. There are quite a few images which depict women significantly more muscular than the one in question.
Andrew1975 wrote:How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
I would assume the coroner would attempt to identify the skeleton by use of their dental records
VorpalBunny74 wrote:This is an interesting dilemma - do you definitely disadvantage trans folk by not allowing them to compete, or do you potentially disadvantage cis athletes by allowing them to compete?
It doesn't look like the science is settled on whether transitioning gives a physical advantage, unless I'm not googling hard enough. Some are saying it doesn't if transitioning before puberty, some say it might if after puberty, etc.
So I’d go with the potential disadvantage over the definite one, but I am oversimplifying the issue
There's no way to definitively know unless you do controlled tests which would require you to monitor then from pre-op to several years post op while trying to control variables such as environment, diet, exercise etc
Andrew1975 wrote: How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
This is not relevant to a transgendered woman or man, only that they can make the transition and live as the people they wish to be recognized as, I see no harm in that, other people should mind their own and tend to their own business and allow people who aren't hurting other people to just get on with living as they wish to live.
Well there seams to be a lot of issues that are not relevant to transgendered people. Its awful strange, because they want their arguments to be relevant, but many don't want to see the relevance of others arguments.
For the most part you are born a male or female, and while there are some exceptions, that is pretty much it. If you long to be man or a women, I have no problem with that, to each his own, but in the end you are pretending to be something you are not. I have no issue with a man dressing as a woman and taking hormones and getting his junk cut off. At the same time, they should never be able to claim public status as and protection as a women. They are not!
I have trans friends that are "Women trapped in a mans body", we hang out sometimes and go drinking, its fine. One I've known since highschool, some I've met as a bar owner. They will still always be men though. From what I get from them, they just want to be accepted for what they are, and be left to live life without discrimination. They however are not trying to prove to anyone that they are actually women, they are trans, hear them roar and all that.
Its a very confusing world sometimes and hard for people to keep it all together. I have gay male clients that want to be called he, and some that want to be called she. There is no real strict guidelines to this and it can get quite confusing and sometimes rather irritating and uncomfortable. Remember, this is all about personal choice and not about science. Calling all gay men or even transgender men she will get you in as much trouble as calling them he.
We have the Gay games coming here in Cleveland, both of my bars are supporting this event, as we have the right for gay people to marry. I believe people should be able to live as they wish, and what happens in your home is private. However, lets not confuse the issue. A person born a male, can never be a real woman, and while it is polite to treat them as such, it should not be legally mandatory. I believe in being polite, and try to remember who wants to be called what, its a hassle though, but for the most part the gay/transgenders seam to be understanding because even they know how confusing it can be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look up pictures of female bodybuilders. There are quite a few images which depict women significantly more muscular than the one in question.
And how many of them are taking steroids or testosterone? How many of them would count as pre op transmales? I mean if all that matters is hormones right? Have you seen the clitoris on some of these female body builders, they take so many hormones that it looks like a little penis. So what is their status?
If you are a trans female athlete and take estrogen to fulfill your "female" status, yet take steroids to increase your athletic ability, where does that leave you?
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: There's no way to definitively know unless you do controlled tests which would require you to monitor then from pre-op to several years post op while trying to control variables such as environment, diet, exercise etc
Yeah, I don't think setting up such a study would be easy, but it would be fascinating
Andrew1975 wrote: How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
This is not relevant to a transgendered woman or man, only that they can make the transition and live as the people they wish to be recognized as, I see no harm in that, other people should mind their own and tend to their own business and allow people who aren't hurting other people to just get on with living as they wish to live.
Well there seams to be a lot of issues that are not relevant to transgendered people. Its awful strange, because they want their arguments to be relevant, but many don't want to see the relevance of others arguments.
For the most part you are born a male or female, and while there are some exceptions, that is pretty much it. If you long to be man or a women, I have no problem with that, to each his own, but in the end you are pretending to be something you are not. I have no issue with a man dressing as a woman and taking hormones and getting his junk cut off. At the same time, they should never be able to claim public status as and protection as a women. They are not!
I have trans friends that are "Women trapped in a mans body", we hang out sometimes and go drinking, its fine. One I've known since highschool, some I've met as a bar owner. They will still always be men though. From what I get from them, they just want to be accepted for what they are, and be left to live life without discrimination. They however are not trying to prove to anyone that they are actually women, they are trans, hear them roar and all that.
Its a very confusing world sometimes and hard for people to keep it all together. I have gay male clients that want to be called he, and some that want to be called she. There is no real strict guidelines to this and it can get quite confusing and sometimes rather irritating and uncomfortable. Remember, this is all about personal choice and not about science. Calling all gay men or even transgender men she will get you in as much trouble as calling them he.
We have the Gay games coming here in Cleveland, both of my bars are supporting this event, as we have the right for gay people to marry. I believe people should be able to live as they wish, and what happens in your home is private. However, lets not confuse the issue. A person born a male, can never be a real woman, and while it is polite to treat them as such, it should not be legally mandatory. I believe in being polite, and try to remember who wants to be called what, its a hassle though, but for the most part the gay/transgenders seam to be understanding because even they know how confusing it can be.
There is no confusion, a man undergoes gender reassignment, is then a woman. She is then referred to as such. Treated as such and entitled to the legal protection and recognition as such.
Undergoing years of painful transition isn't 'pretending' to me, it's showing a dedication and commitment to becoming the person they feel they must be. I won't begrudge nor denigrate that. 'They will always be men'? To you, if you wish to maintain that illusion, to me, if a trans gendered person presents as a woman I will treat her as such.
I think his point was a little more nuanced than just that, MGS... he obviously knows and interacts with transgender folks frequently due to his work (not that this makes him an expert, just saying) and was saying that the ones he encounters consider themselves "trans". There are some notable differences between a transgender woman and a naturally born woman, for instance...
But that's all kind of off the original topic... somehow, this thread got into talking about transgender people in general, but no one (I believe) is disputing the right of a person to be transgender in our society.
People have every right to be transgender, and that's absolutely not in question. The question is, does a man who has had procedures described above to become a transgender woman, qualify to compete in female sporting events?
That question has many layers and those seem to be being brushed over for the sake of sensationalist arguments on both sides, unfortunately... again, a clearer argument is the reverse- does a woman who has had these procedures to become a transgender man qualify to compete in male sporting events? The answer is almost undoubtedly no in most sports leagues, due to the testosterone the person would be taking on a regular basis to maintain their status... as taking extra testosterone is banned in most sporting leagues.
That's what this was all about at the start (and the huge lawsuit the person is seeking, of course!). No one is, or at least should be, calling into question the right of a person to be transgender if they wish... but that does not mean they have the right to compete in a sporting league if their therapy doesn't qualify them to do so.
And how many of them are taking steroids or testosterone? How many of them would count as pre op transmales? I mean if all that matters is hormones right? Have you seen the clitoris on some of these female body builders, they take so many hormones that it looks like a little penis. So what is their status?
A lot, because lots of bodybuilders take steroids, but not all of them do. It is possible for women to build lots of muscle mass if they have the right diet and non-steroidal supplements. They won't be as muscular as the most muscular man, but they can be more muscular than most men.
If you are a trans female athlete and take estrogen to fulfill your "female" status, yet take steroids to increase your athletic ability, where does that leave you?
Interesting question, though in the context of competition the answer is clear: it makes you a doper.
Andrew1975 wrote: How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
This is not relevant to a transgendered woman or man, only that they can make the transition and live as the people they wish to be recognized as, I see no harm in that, other people should mind their own and tend to their own business and allow people who aren't hurting other people to just get on with living as they wish to live.
Well there seams to be a lot of issues that are not relevant to transgendered people. Its awful strange, because they want their arguments to be relevant, but many don't want to see the relevance of others arguments.
For the most part you are born a male or female, and while there are some exceptions, that is pretty much it. If you long to be man or a women, I have no problem with that, to each his own, but in the end you are pretending to be something you are not. I have no issue with a man dressing as a woman and taking hormones and getting his junk cut off. At the same time, they should never be able to claim public status as and protection as a women. They are not!
I have trans friends that are "Women trapped in a mans body", we hang out sometimes and go drinking, its fine. One I've known since highschool, some I've met as a bar owner. They will still always be men though. From what I get from them, they just want to be accepted for what they are, and be left to live life without discrimination. They however are not trying to prove to anyone that they are actually women, they are trans, hear them roar and all that.
Its a very confusing world sometimes and hard for people to keep it all together. I have gay male clients that want to be called he, and some that want to be called she. There is no real strict guidelines to this and it can get quite confusing and sometimes rather irritating and uncomfortable. Remember, this is all about personal choice and not about science. Calling all gay men or even transgender men she will get you in as much trouble as calling them he.
We have the Gay games coming here in Cleveland, both of my bars are supporting this event, as we have the right for gay people to marry. I believe people should be able to live as they wish, and what happens in your home is private. However, lets not confuse the issue. A person born a male, can never be a real woman, and while it is polite to treat them as such, it should not be legally mandatory. I believe in being polite, and try to remember who wants to be called what, its a hassle though, but for the most part the gay/transgenders seam to be understanding because even they know how confusing it can be.
There is no confusion, a man undergoes gender reassignment, is then a woman. She is then referred to as such. Treated as such and entitled to the legal protection and recognition as such.
Undergoing years of painful transition isn't 'pretending' to me, it's showing a dedication and commitment to becoming the person they feel they must be. I won't begrudge nor denigrate that. 'They will always be men'? To you, if you wish to maintain that illusion, to me, if a trans gendered person presents as a woman I will treat her as such.
If you think there is no confusion I don't think you hang out with lgbt people enough.
Yeah its cool to say just refer to them as they want to be refereed to. In practice, its less easy. Especially when you are expected to remember who wants to be refereed to as what when you have very limited interactions with them. Its never been a big issue, but thats more because for the most part, the people I interact with understand it can be a confusing issue.
Its not bigotry to say unless you were born a woman you will never be a real woman. Its just fact. It may hurt your feelings, but I find that most trans people have pretty thick skins when it comes to that. Most would think that a trans trying to get legal status to compete as a women is really trying to inject themselves into a controversy that reflects poorly on them as a community.
And how many of them are taking steroids or testosterone? How many of them would count as pre op transmales? I mean if all that matters is hormones right? Have you seen the clitoris on some of these female body builders, they take so many hormones that it looks like a little penis. So what is their status?
A lot, because lots of bodybuilders take steroids, but not all of them do. It is possible for women to build lots of muscle mass if they have the right diet and non-steroidal supplements. They won't be as muscular as the most muscular man, but they can be more muscular than most men.
If you are a trans female athlete and take estrogen to fulfill your "female" status, yet take steroids to increase your athletic ability, where does that leave you?
Interesting question, though in the context of competition the answer is clear: it makes you a doper.
But are you a doper male or female at that point. I say you are a doper transgender. People can and do, and I think should identify as transgender, and if you are upset as being referred to as the neutral "it" then you have to get to know me, which isn't hard, you just have to come up to the bar enough that I know what you like being called. I have a client, that come in all the time "princess vinnie" is how he likes to be called, he is not trans just gay as the day is long, he likes to be called she, which I do, he calls me and everybody "Mary". I can tell you sometimes in my conversations its hard to follow what he is saying because the pronouns are confusing and everyone is "Mary". Confusing, but fun and interesting.
Andrew1975 wrote: Its not bigotry to say unless you were born a woman you will never be a real woman.
Oh, it certainly is. The entire concept of being a "real" woman by your personal standards is incredibly offensive.
It may hurt your feelings, but I find that most trans people have pretty thick skins when it comes to that.
Yeah, I guess you do kind of have to learn how to put up with abuse if you're considered an "acceptable target". I don't really see why this should be taken as permission to add more abuse.
People can and do, and I think should identify as transgender, and if you are upset as being referred to as the neutral "it" then you have to get to know me, which isn't hard, you just have to come up to the bar enough that I know what you like being called.
Wow. You really do want to see how offensive you can be. How about instead of treating people like objects and calling them "it" until they jump through all of your hoops you could use the gender-neutral "they" instead.
Andrew1975 wrote: It may hurt your feelings, but I find that most trans people have pretty thick skins when it comes to that.
Yeah, I guess you do kind of have to learn how to put up with abuse if you're considered an "acceptable target". I don't really see why this should be taken as permission to add more abuse.
It'd be preferable to have a word that worked that didn't imply plural as "they" does, but I agree that Andrew's other choice was poor.
However, you didn't respond to the other points about athletic competition, which is what this thread is about, so I'm going to assume you're in agreement and move on since that's all I really care about... the civil rights issue is not even in question in my mind.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: This is an interesting dilemma - do you definitely disadvantage trans folk by not allowing them to compete, or do you potentially disadvantage cis athletes by allowing them to compete?
Let them compete against men. M->F Trans would have no advantage from being a man throughout their youth. F->M Trans would have no advantage from the hormone therapy.
Andrew1975 wrote: Its not bigotry to say unless you were born a woman you will never be a real woman.
Oh, it certainly is. The entire concept of being a "real" woman by your personal standards is incredibly offensive.
It may hurt your feelings, but I find that most trans people have pretty thick skins when it comes to that.
Yeah, I guess you do kind of have to learn how to put up with abuse if you're considered an "acceptable target". I don't really see why this should be taken as permission to add more abuse.
People can and do, and I think should identify as transgender, and if you are upset as being referred to as the neutral "it" then you have to get to know me, which isn't hard, you just have to come up to the bar enough that I know what you like being called.
Wow. You really do want to see how offensive you can be. How about instead of treating people like objects and calling them "it" until they jump through all of your hoops you could use the gender-neutral "they" instead.
They? really? They is about as impersonal as it gets. It being gender neutral is not offensive, unless you take it that way. Being a real woman or man by birth is not offensive. Hell there are natural born Men that I don't consider real men. You may be offended and that is your right. The fact still remains, if you were born a man you can never be a real woman. Nature isn't cruel, its just nature, the lion eats the lamb, not out of cruelty, but because that is its nature.
Once you are known to be a doper, sex becomes irrelevant; you're mixing issues.
Not really. You are still a male. female or transgender at that point.
Oh, it certainly is. The entire concept of being a "real" woman by your personal standards is incredibly offensive.
Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. People get offended by lots of stuff. I find your intolerance to my rules offensive, I'm pretty open minded and have plenty of gay friends and clients. Doesn't make it relevant to anything. There is fact and nature, you can deny it all you want. You can accept or not accept, still doesn't change the facts or nature.
Undergoing years of painful transition isn't 'pretending' to me, it's showing a dedication and commitment to becoming the person they feel they must be. I won't begrudge nor denigrate that. 'They will always be men'? To you, if you wish to maintain that illusion, to me, if a trans gendered person presents as a woman I will treat her as such.
I'll treat them as such to. But not because the law dictates it, but because it is polite. Still doesn't change the facts that they were born a man, and will always be a man to some degree. The illusion is that they have become a women, not that they are a man. You seam to not understand what an illusion is or how it works.
More than 50% of Transgender youth will have had at least one suicide attempt by their 20th birthday.
Wow, shocking statistic really? how does that correlate? Whats the rate of non transgenders? Whats the rate of just gay people? What is the rate of other fringe people? Suicide rates of African American males is high too. Lets look at goth kids now. Sad people are sad, haters are going to hate. .....whatever. Life is very confusing for everybody, not just confused people, doesn't mean its societies responsibility to handle it all for every exception to the rules.
Andrew1975 wrote: How would a coroner label the skeleton of a trans women? Would they be able to know its a trans woman if all they found was the skeleton?
For the most part you are born a male or female, and while there are some exceptions, that is pretty much it. If you long to be man or a women, I have no problem with that, to each his own, but in the end you are pretending to be something you are not. I have no issue with a man dressing as a woman and taking hormones and getting his junk cut off. At the same time, they should never be able to claim public status as and protection as a women. They are not!
So your stance is let them do it but deny them the reason they are doing it? This reminds of the fake tolerance argument you can hear in any pub on a Friday night "gays can do what they want, just don't do it in front of me".
Transgender people who more often than not struggle with depression, abuse and go through serious medical procedures are lying to themselves? Pretending to be something they're not? I've met a few transgendered women and one showed me pre-transition photos, they had a beard and were pretty built then I found out a lot of closeted transgenders do this, trying to fight off they're feelings and fit in, that's lying to yourself. Read any transgender life story and almost universally they came to their conclusion very early, basically as soon as they could form coherent sentences, age 5 or 6. I think that's a little young to be a poseur. Here's one:
You make it sound likes its a casual lifestyle choice, no one would wish this situation on themselves, the sheer effort and commitment it takes to transition is no glib 'oh go on then' moment.
What you are willing to accept is nothing to brag about, you're basically saying when a transgendered person walks into your bar you don't give them gak to their face even though you think they don't deserve recognition as a group.
And why did you bring up gay events at your bar? You might as well say "I don't hate Muslims, look I've got loads of Black friends".
Wow, shocking statistic really? how does that correlate? Whats the rate of non transgenders? Whats the rate of just gay people? What is the rate of other fringe people? Suicide rates of African American males is high too. Lets look at goth kids now. Sad people are sad, haters are going to hate. .....whatever. Life is very confusing for everybody, not just confused people, doesn't mean its societies responsibility to handle it all for every exception to the rules.
Wow.
I thought I simply disagreed with you, now you're mocking incredibly high suicides rates and saying they're a minority so screw them. Growing up transgendered is not the same as growing up in general so yes you should have exceptions, thankfully policy makers aren't so glib. The 'exception to the rule' bit is facetious garbage, it takes no effort to pay a little courtesy and concern, if you chat with a transgendered person in your bar but refuse to grant them desired rights you're not being polite as you keep insisting you are. Do you stop transgendered women from using the women's toilets? If a transgendered woman applied for a job and marked herself as female on the application would you want it to be changed?
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: There's no way to definitively know unless you do controlled tests which would require you to monitor then from pre-op to several years post op while trying to control variables such as environment, diet, exercise etc
Yeah, I don't think setting up such a study would be easy, but it would be fascinating
Again, while that kind of information would be nice to have, it is not required. Simple observation of the performance of trans athletes relative to both genders, especially tracked over time (and vs any pre-treatment and type of treatment data if known) can allow you to work out enough to give reasonable estimates as to how trans athletes rate vs their original gender and their new gender.
Jape wrote: Do you stop transgendered women from using the women's toilets? If a transgendered woman applied for a job and marked herself as female on the application would you want it to be changed?
Jape wrote: Do you stop transgendered women from using the women's toilets? If a transgendered woman applied for a job and marked herself as female on the application would you want it to be changed?
Would you sleep with a transgendered woman?
Only metric that matters, really.
No, but I also wouldn't be willing to sleep with about 90% or more of the global female population over 18.
Andrew1975 wrote: They? really? They is about as impersonal as it gets.
Yes, "they". The word commonly used to describe a person of unknown gender (for example, talking about a forum poster who I've never met), even if it isn't technically correct by the Official Rules Of English.
It being gender neutral is not offensive, unless you take it that way.
Sigh. "It" isn't offensive because it's gender-neutral, it's offensive because "it" refers to an object, not a person. By calling someone "it" you're essentially saying that they aren't even worth considering a person, and that's incredibly offensive.
The fact still remains, if you were born a man you can never be a real woman.
Only by your bigoted and ignorant definition of "real woman".
There is fact and nature, you can deny it all you want. You can accept or not accept, still doesn't change the facts or nature.
This is especially ironic given the indisputable facts of nature that a transgender person is their chosen gender in the ways that matter most. They only aren't if you narrowly define gender according to what bits a person was born with and ignore all of the other aspects.
Wow, shocking statistic really? how does that correlate? Whats the rate of non transgenders? Whats the rate of just gay people? What is the rate of other fringe people? Suicide rates of African American males is high too. Lets look at goth kids now. Sad people are sad, haters are going to hate. .....whatever. Life is very confusing for everybody, not just confused people, doesn't mean its societies responsibility to handle it all for every exception to the rules.
Good job lowering my opinion of you. I didn't think there was actually room for that to happen.
Jape wrote: Do you stop transgendered women from using the women's toilets? If a transgendered woman applied for a job and marked herself as female on the application would you want it to be changed?
Would you sleep with a transgendered woman?
Only metric that matters, really.
No, but I also wouldn't be willing to sleep with about 90% or more of the global female population over 18.
How can you prove if the suicidal tendencies and depression stem from the individual being or believing that they are transgender and not the other way around?
Jape wrote: Do you stop transgendered women from using the women's toilets? If a transgendered woman applied for a job and marked herself as female on the application would you want it to be changed?
Would you sleep with a transgendered woman?
Only metric that matters, really.
No, but I also wouldn't be willing to sleep with about 90% or more of the global female population over 18.
Man, you like them really young.
Actually, I think I'm done being involved with any girls under 21. That just feels like robbing the cradle.
Not really. You are still a male. female or transgender at that point.
And that is irrelevant to any doping charge. No one, ever, has been accused of using the drugs involved in sex reassignment for performance gain; or using separate drugs while engaging in sex reassignment.
Also, bear in mind it is possible be trans but not identify as trans.
Not really. You are still a male. female or transgender at that point.
And that is irrelevant to any doping charge. No one, ever, has been accused of using the drugs involved in sex reassignment for performance gain; or using separate drugs while engaging in sex reassignment.
Also, bear in mind it is possible be trans but not identify as trans.
Such as the case with the story in the OP; she doesn't consider herself as trans*, she's been openly displaying as female for so long that she classes herself as entirely female.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I fail to see how it is bigoted to use the definition given by one of my favorite dictionaries.
This is quite possibly the worst argument I've yet heard on Dakka, and as someone who has been here a few years, that's quite the accomplishment. Bravo, sir!
The next time you see a dark skinned fellow, make sure and refer to him by another word in the dictionary, the definition of which is "usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race", and the explain it's not offensive, it's a dictionary definition!
Unit1126PLL wrote: I fail to see how it is bigoted to use the definition given by one of my favorite dictionaries.
This is quite possibly the worst argument I've yet heard on Dakka, and as someone who has been here a few years, that's quite the accomplishment. Bravo, sir!
The next time you see a dark skinned fellow, make sure and refer to him by another word in the dictionary, the definition of which is "usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race", and the explain it's not offensive, it's a dictionary definition!
Why would I use a word from the dictionary that's offensive?
I'm 99% sure that the the dictionary entries Woman or Female don't contain that statement. I would probably not use them if it did, just like how I don't use the word you describe.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I fail to see how it is bigoted to use the definition given by one of my favorite dictionaries.
This is quite possibly the worst argument I've yet heard on Dakka, and as someone who has been here a few years, that's quite the accomplishment. Bravo, sir!
The next time you see a dark skinned fellow, make sure and refer to him by another word in the dictionary, the definition of which is "usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race", and the explain it's not offensive, it's a dictionary definition!
Not that I am dissatisfied with my first response, but I asked "How is a dictionary definition bigoted?" And then you compared it to a word which has a note in the dictionary saying it is bigoted.
If the definitions for women or female shared the note about being bigoted, sure, then to define a woman as such is bigoted. But since it is not noted as such, then it is merely common parlance (or whatever dictionaries claim to define) to call someone who can bear young a female, and someone who cannot, is not.
MrDwhitey wrote: So is this the point someone mentions barren women?
Makes no difference, the barren woman in your example still fits the criteria given of being female as she is "of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs". Being barren doesn't change your sex.
But since it is not noted as such, then it is merely common parlance (or whatever dictionaries claim to define) to call someone who can bear young a female, and someone who cannot, is not.
Redbeard wrote: So, if I make a case that I had an African ancestor, some number of generations ago, I could choose to present myself as African American, qualifying for all the minority employment criteria, in spite of the fact that these are in place specifically to help actual minorities? Because that's "my" identity?
What is an "actual" minority?
Well, one on the government list for preferential contract offers, in this case. I mean, I'm a red-head, which means I'm part of the smallest genetic minority out there (less than 1%), but red-headed isn't a privileged class. On the other hand, many cities have a requirement that some percentage of city contracts go to minority-owned firms. In these cases, I believe they spell out exactly what counts. Typically, it includes African-Americans and Latinos. Sometimes it also includes Asians, or Native Americans, and sometimes women are included. But red-heads aren't.
However, that's not the relevant question to be asking or answering here. If we accept that a trans-woman loses muscle mass due to her hormone treatments, the relevant question is does she lose enough muscle mass to make it a fair competition with cis-women, and I don't think there's any data on that.
I didn't make it clear in my original post, but the MMA fighter wasn't competing against men; she was competing against women. Quite a few potential opponents had issues with her having been born a man, claiming that she was naturally stronger than any female opponent due to her "male" musculature. In the two bouts she has fought since coming out as trans, it was made pretty clear that she wasn't any stronger than her female opponents, and the reason is that all of the estrogen she sucks down each morning prevents her from putting on the kind of muscle you'd see on a man.
How does an MMA bout show who is stronger. I've seen plenty of fights where a more-skilled competitor beats a stronger one.
In the end, she is on a more even footing with a female opponent than she would be with a male one.
More even is not the same as even. She may be closer to cis-female than cis-male in her current capabilities, but that still doesn't show that her current capabilities are not greater than those of cis-women.
In her current physical state, forcing her to only fight male opponents because she was born male would be unfair, as she is measurably weaker than they are. Denying her the opportunity to compete in any sport at all (which would be the practical result of preventing her from competing with women, as there aren't enough athletes to form a trans sport league) would be wrong.
No it wouldn't. If you consider the possible scenarios, you see the following:
If she's stronger than cis-women, then fighting against cis-male opponents may disadvantage her, but it not inherently unfair, as she's making the informed decision herself. Fighting against cis-women is inherently unfair, as she has an natural advantage against them, and this is not a choice they are making.
If she's no stronger than a cis-woman, then it is not unfair for her to fight them.
In the absence of data, the only reasonable option is the one that minimizes the risk of unfairness. Looking at the options, the only way to ensure no unfairness is to have trans-women fight against cis-men, if they wish to compete. If may be harder for her, but it's not unfair.
However, that's not the relevant question to be asking or answering here. If we accept that a trans-woman loses muscle mass due to her hormone treatments, the relevant question is does she lose enough muscle mass to make it a fair competition with cis-women, and I don't think there's any data on that.
If you don't let them compete, there won't be any data.
That's not true. You can gather data about capabilities outside of competition. You can do time-trials for running, and benchmarking strength tests. The only question, at that point, is whether the trans-woman sandbags those tests to mis-represent her true abilities. Actual competition is the worst way to gauge whether someone has an unfair advantage, as the advantage they possess may well be discounted by their opponent's natural advantages or skills. Plenty of AAA baseball players and special-teamers in the NFL have taken supplements in order to improve their performance, and yet still aren't as good as the major-leaguers and starters.
iproxtaco wrote:Why shouldn't we consider her female if that's what she wants to be considered as? Because of her genetics? That seems completely arbitrary and irrelevant in day to day life.
Well, I guess it depends on the definitions, doesn't it. If the definition of a female (of any species) is that she has two XX chromosomes, and males have XY chromosomes, then you have a very rigid and testable definition that's immutable by the vagaries of what people might think. If the definition of female is "whatever someone thinks it is" that's a pretty lax standard, and hard to apply with any certainty anywhere.
Peregrine wrote:Sigh. Remember the part where taking female hormones negates the former advantage of starting with a male body?
Nope. I remember the part where taking female hormones leads to reduced muscle-mass compared to cis-males. It has not been shown that the amount of muscle lost fully negates that which is gained by starting as a male, nor that musculature differences do not prove advantageous. (Women suffer far more ACL/MCL issues than men, which is widely believed to be a result of additional sideways stresses on the knees due to wider hips. A trans-woman, even if the decrease in musculature were fully equivalent to a cis-woman, may still have an advantage in any sport involving running or changing directions, simply because her knees would be better able to withstand the stresses of the movement.)
MrDwhitey wrote: So is this the point someone mentions barren women?
Makes no difference, the barren woman in your example still fits the criteria given of being female as she is "of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs". Being barren doesn't change your sex.
Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...
The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.
Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...
The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.
The person hasn't undergone a genetic change, they don't become 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Can I declare myself Black/Asian or is it just gender which is governed by these bizarre opt-in rules?
Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...
The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.
The person hasn't undergone a genetic change, they don't become 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Can I declare myself Black/Asian or is it just gender which is governed by these bizarre opt-in rules?
Is race the same thing as gender?
Why is genetics the identifier for gender and treatment of the individual in society over public social acceptance?
KingCracker wrote:The argument is over everyone, the dictionary came into the fray.
Webster's Law!
MrDwhitey wrote:So is this the point someone mentions barren women?
Usually.
Of course, the Dictionary defintion just gets a bit cirular, because it definse being "female" as related to the sex that can bear young.
What does sex mean?
1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
Race and gender are both two descriptors of genetic traits.
Why is genetics the identifier for gender and treatment of the individual in society over public social acceptance?
How about genetics is the identifier for gender because gender is determined by genetics? As for gender being the basis of the treatment of people in society, are you asking me to try to explain the occurrence of sexist attitudes in a historically patriarchal society?
RiTides wrote: no one (I believe) is disputing the right of a person to be transgender in our society.
Which is, with only minimal hyperbole, akin to stating that nobody dispute the right to be a pariah.
Trans individuals usually want the right to be the sex they identify with, full stop.
does a woman who has had these procedures to become a transgender man qualify to compete in male sporting events? The answer is almost undoubtedly no in most sports leagues, due to the testosterone the person would be taking on a regular basis to maintain their status... as taking extra testosterone is banned in most sporting leagues.
Nearly all leagues allow waivers for low testosterone as a medical condition. They are, as you can imagine, fairly rare (outside of the lightly regulated UFC).
In practice, transmen are unlikely to have any unfair advantage, at least with age and gender appropiate hormone levels.
That's what this was all about at the start (and the huge lawsuit the person is seeking, of course!). No one is, or at least should be, calling into question the right of a person to be transgender if they wish... but that does not mean they have the right to compete in a sporting league if their therapy doesn't qualify them to do so.
And that's been my point from the start: is there an actual advantage to being transfemale? Can hormone levels be tested (at competitior expense) and shown to be within normal limits for a cisfemale? At that point, isn't the transwoman just a woman with an unusually large frame that's likely still within normal limits?
I would only condone barring a transwoman if there is a shown advantage.
One area that can exist is that men have stronger knee joints, due to having narrower hips. Have you ever noticed how many great female atheletes blow out knees? It's because wider hips means the femur comes into the knee joint (not the strongest on its best day) at more of an angle then the male femur.
That's not true. You can gather data about capabilities outside of competition. You can do time-trials for running, and benchmarking strength tests. The only question, at that point, is whether the trans-woman sandbags those tests to mis-represent her true abilities. Actual competition is the worst way to gauge whether someone has an unfair advantage, as the advantage they possess may well be discounted by their opponent's natural advantages or skills. Plenty of AAA baseball players and special-teamers in the NFL have taken supplements in order to improve their performance, and yet still aren't as good as the major-leaguers and starters.
As any any NFL scout will tell you, benchmark numbers are not a perfect indicator of athletic success (which is what we're concerned about). Ever hear of Justin Ernest? Probably not, because he was a gakky football player, but he did put up 51 repetitions while running a 4.8.
does a woman who has had these procedures to become a transgender man qualify to compete in male sporting events? The answer is almost undoubtedly no in most sports leagues, due to the testosterone the person would be taking on a regular basis to maintain their status... as taking extra testosterone is banned in most sporting leagues.
Nearly all leagues allow waivers for low testosterone as a medical condition. They are, as you can imagine, fairly rare (outside of the lightly regulated UFC).
In practice, transmen are unlikely to have any unfair advantage, at least with age and gender appropiate hormone levels.
Polonius, as you note that article is talking about MMA... here is one that specifically talks about how the frequent low testosterone exemptions for MMA fighters is a problem and completely outside the norm of other major sporting leagues, including the Olympics:
• The International Olympic Committee did not issue a single testosterone exemption for the 2012 London Olympics, which featured 5,892 male athletes.
• The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued one testosterone exemption last year among the thousands of elite-level athletes under its jurisdiction.
• Major League Baseball has issued six exemptions to athletes over the past six seasons -- an average of 1,200 players populate its rosters each season.
• National Football League officials say testosterone exemptions are "very rare" and only a "handful" have been issued since 1990. Nearly 2,000 players circulate through rosters each season.
• No pro boxer is known to have had an exemption issued through a state athletic commission, and Nevada officials said they have never even received an application.
In other words, such exemptions are extremely rare with the EXCEPTION of MMA (again as you note, but just to emphasize it), and that article paints it as being pretty commonly known that it is abusive to allow it there so frequently / unfair to the other competitors.
But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.
This is not civil rights, which are not in question, this is sporting league rules... and the onus is, in my opinion, on the person who has had a sex change to prove that they do not have an unfair advantage in order to gain an exemption to compete as the opposite sex, not the other way around. It was similar with Oscar Pistorius and his running blades- he apparently was able to prove (or scientists were) that they did not provide him an unfair advantage, even though they were an addition not normally allowed in competition for every other competitor.
That's really all it comes down to... the civil rights question is separate and, imo, is absolutely black and white: Yes, people can be transgendered. What professional sports league they qualify to compete in (a male league or a female one, or another entirely, depending on each specific league's rules) is another matter. Oscar Pistorius, for instance, had to compete against only athletes also using running blades for some time. His was a bit of a one-off case because most of these runners aren't able to compete at the top level anyway. But, it seems likely that a man who has had procedures to become a woman may indeed have a competitive advantage and be able to compete at the top levels of female athletics more easily than a runner with an amputated leg... and it is up to sporting leagues to determine whether such a person, undergoing the therapies that they are, qualifies for their competition under the strict substance rules they all follow now.
I'm glad you addressed this topic as no one really seems to want to talk about the sporting leagues which was supposedly the subject matter here, and what I find to be very interesting (being a big sports fan). However, I think most others just want to talk about the issue in general and about people who are biased against transgender people in general, which should be stamped out just like any bias in society is regarding civil rights... but competing in a sporting league that has strong restrictions is not a civil right, and a much more complex issue than the basic right to be transgendered (which is not in doubt, at least by most reasonable people, and by the law).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's another example- the disabled golfer who sued to be allowed to use a golf cart on the PGA tour. The Supreme Court said that yes, he could do that, as doing so did not alter the competition enough to disallow it:
In its appeal, the PGA Tour argued that the walking rule served the purpose of injecting ''the element of fatigue'' into the competition. The court today turned this argument against the Tour, relying on the trial court's finding that even riding in a cart, Mr. Martin faced at least as much fatigue as a healthy golfer walking the course, because of the need to get out of the cart at each hole to walk a total of a mile or more while making his shots.
So, through the courts this person was able to persuasively argue that riding in a golf cart did not present a competitive advantage.
Similarly, a transgender athlete would need to be granted an exception to the normal rules of competition, and thus to be able to prove either to the sporting league or to a court that they do not have any competitive advantage that the other competitors do not have access to.
In the case of a trasngender male (formerly female) wanting to compete in male sporting events, they would need the above testosterone exemption that I linked to / described.
The point is, there isn't a blanket "Yes it's fine" for transgender athletes in sporting leagues, even though there is a blanket "Yes it's fine" for transgender people regarding civil rights. Each league is different, each sport is different, and what may be OK for one league may not be OK for another. An all-female wrestling league may not allow such an athlete, while a ski-jumping league may (as I understand the women go pretty much just as far as the men there, anyway ).
So, it's a nuanced issue of where a transgendered athlete would be allowed to compete, and not at all black and white, unlike the civil rights issue which is totally black and white. It will need to be dealt with by each league/sport individually depending on what is required to compete in that sport.
Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...
The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.
The person hasn't undergone a genetic change, they don't become 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Can I declare myself Black/Asian or is it just gender which is governed by these bizarre opt-in rules?
That logic works perfectly with women that are born unable to bare children or produce eggs. My mistake, that clearly makes them males by your definition
RiTides wrote: Polonius, that article is talking about MMA... I'll give you one that specifically talks about how the frequent low testosterone exemptions for MMA fighters is a problem and completely outside the norm of other major sporting leagues, including the Olympics:
that's actually the article I was looking for. I think the point is, getting an exemption isn't impossible, it's just extremely difficult. That's a big difference.
But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.
I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?
This is not civil rights, which are not in question, this is sporting league rules... and the onus is, in my opinion, on the person who has had a sex change to prove that they do not have an unfair advantage in order to gain an exemption, not the other way around. It was similar with Oscar Pistorius and his running blades- he apparently was able to prove (or scientists were) that they did not provide him an unfair advantage.
I think that's fair. I mean, it's unfair to the competitor, but fair to the other competitiors. I mean, you end up trying to prove a negative.
I'm glad you addressed this topic as no one really seems to want to talk about the sporting leagues which was supposedly the subject matter here, and what I find to be very interesting (being a big sports fan). However, I think most others just want to talk about the issue in general and about people who are biased against transgender people in general, which should be stamped out just like any bias in society is regarding civil rights... but competing in a sporting league that has strong restrictions is not a civil right, and a much more complex issue than the basic right to be transgender (which is not in doubt, at least by most reasonable people and by the law).
Well, we can jaw policy all we want, but if a state determines that the right to compete as a woman is a civil right, that's that.
At it's broadest leve, Civil Rights are about how a person can interact freely with society. So, it is a matter of civil rights. Of course, nearly all non-consitutional such rights (and more then a few of those) can and are abridged due to necessity.
The question becomes, as I posed ealier, what is more important: the validity of competition, or a person's right to compete as their legal sex?
I'm a sports fan, and if there were transmen that could hit the strike zone with 90 mph fast balls, I'd want major league baseball to grant them steroid waivers and let them play. If a transman had no higher testosterone then a cis-man, why block him?
The male to female is the only real issue I see, and it makes sense, given the physiological differences between even elite male and female athletes. To an extent, very few elite athletes are trans, so it doesn't matter at high levels, but I suppose local clubs could get bogged down in stuff.
I would make the standard that if a transperson has an advantage beyond the normal, "life ain't fair" type, then banning might be justified. But nearly all sports involve situations where sheer size or height or other inborn factor is key. If a person is tall or built because they are trans, but no more than any other outlier, what's the net harm?
But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.
I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?
I'm right there with you... actually quite curious about this now.
But, my gut feeling is that a transgendered female (formerly male) would indeed have a pretty strong advantage- not that just any person could dominate competition, but that they would be much more likely to than most other exceptions that have been granted in sporting leagues (like I discussed above). I think, similar to Oscar Pistorius' situation and the disabled golfer who wanted to use a cart, they would have to prove in court or to the league's governing body that their procedure (having formerly been male) did not grant them a competitive advantage. This could then likely be applied to any athlete in a similar position wanting to compete in that particular sporting league (but not other leagues).
However, I find the issue very interesting... so again, thanks for actually discussing that part with me . Also, I had edited my post above as I realized you had already noted that the MMA exceptions were, well... the exception not the rule for most sporting leagues.
Once a person identifies themselves as 'a woman' and people accept them as a woman, then that person is female as she is 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Being born male doesn't change that...
The majority's perception defines reality. If enough people say 'yes, she is a woman now' , then she is a woman, her past is no longer her definition. Her current state is.
The person hasn't undergone a genetic change, they don't become 'of the sex that can produce young or lay eggs'. Can I declare myself Black/Asian or is it just gender which is governed by these bizarre opt-in rules?
That logic works perfectly with women that are born unable to bare children or produce eggs. My mistake, that clearly makes them males by your definition
No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.
But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.
I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?
I'm right there with you... actually quite curious about this now.
But, my gut feeling is that a transgendered female (formerly male) would indeed have a pretty strong advantage- not that just any person could dominate competition, but that they would be much more likely to than most other exceptions that have been granted in sporting leagues (like I discussed above).
However, I find the issue very interesting... so again, thanks for actually discussing that part with me . Also, I had edited my post above as I realized you had already noted that the MMA exceptions were, well... the exception not the rule for most sporting leagues.
I think there is evidence that an elite (or likely even borderline elite) male athlete, once trans, would have a strong relative boost to her performance as a woman.
this is why, IMO, the Olympic rules are so fascinating. The Olympics, for nearly all non-football/bat&ball games, is the highest level of competition, and they allow transwomen to compete as women, with strict limits. The Olympics is a genuinely big deal.
So, to me, the though that hte local Crossfit Gym feels the purity of their competition is somehow more important is bit chuckleworthy.
I think the fear most people have is that you'd have tons of dudes get sex changes, and dominate female sports. That simply seems unlikley, given the length of time it would take, the psychological screening sex reassignment surgery requires, and the sheer need to change sex in order to do better in sports.
To me, I almost wonder if allowing transwomen to compete would merely add a handful of upper level competitiors, and perhaps give some sports one or two transcendent atheletes a generation. I mean, it wasn't fair to Charles Barkley to play ball during the Michael Jordan years. Jordan was born the greatest competitior in NBA history. It wouldn't be fair to have a transwoman dominate a sport, but would it be more unfair?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lesebyst wrote: No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.
So what seperates a barren woman from a transwoman?
Lesebyst wrote: No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.
So what seperates a barren woman from a transwoman?
A barren woman is of the sex (ie has the same sex chromosomes) of those that can produce young. A transwoman is not of the sex of those that can produce young. It's really not a hard concept :/ If I met a transwoman I'd talk to them using whatever title they requested, I'd take them on as a client or if they applied for a job I'd consider hiring them based on their skills. But, I'd still think of them as biological male and I wouldn't feel it was fair on people with XX sex chromosomes to have to compete against them in certain sporting events.
Race and gender are both two descriptors of genetic traits.
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.
Also read this: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html Race is principally a social construct.
Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. So, if the physical, mental and behavioral characteristics are female, what does this mean for the biological.
And, again, if the social recognition of an individual is to accept their request to be regarded as female, if we say that someone is female, they are female, regardless of your bizarre insistence on them possessing the ability to lay eggs or spawn.
Why is genetics the identifier for gender and treatment of the individual in society over public social acceptance?
How about genetics is the identifier for gender because gender is determined by genetics? As for gender being the basis of the treatment of people in society, are you asking me to try to explain the occurrence of sexist attitudes in a historically patriarchal society?
See above... Also we are not talking about historical settings, or we'd still be denying women the vote, sending our old to die in workhouses and our young up chimneys, we are talking about a more enlightened (in the most part) society continually moving towards full acceptance and it's treatment of trans individuals being free to claim the gender they wish without some idiot blocking them by claiming 'cos science' and bending dictionary definitions and genetics to abuse and deny individuals within a socially constructed setting.
A deaf person can be said to be genetically inferior, we do not regard that deaf person as inferior within society, we accept them, make accommodation for them and embrace them as equals, only the lowest form of gak would treat them as inferior, regardless of the scientific claim of inferiority. Your use, or rather misuse of science to claim justification for ignorance towards transgendered individuals has no bearing on the matter at hand, which is sociological.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lesebyst wrote: But, I'd still think of them as biological male
Lesebyst wrote: No that's a total failure in comprehension, they are still female because they are OF the sex that can produce young. They don't have to produce eggs to qualify.
So what seperates a barren woman from a transwoman?
A barren woman is of the sex (ie has the same sex chromosomes) of those that can produce young. A transwoman is not of the sex of those that can produce young. It's really not a hard concept :/ If I met a transwoman I'd talk to them using whatever title they requested, I'd take them on as a client or if they applied for a job I'd consider hiring them based on their skills. But, I'd still think of them as biological male and I wouldn't feel it was fair on people with XX sex chromosomes to have to compete against them in certain sporting events.
I"m sure you've figured out how to handle those people that are neither XX nor XY genetically, of course.
Not to mention the medical literature on individuals with male anatomy but XX chormosomes, or vice versa.
I think you'll find that bringing genetics into discussions of sex and gender muddies, rather than clears, the situation.
But if your argument is that, a female who has had procedures to become a male is unlikely to have an advantage... I cannot reasonably think that you think the reverse would not be true- that a male who has had procedures to become a female is likely to have an advantage.
I don't disagree. I"m just curious how much of an advantage it would be. Would nearly any transwoman dominate competition? Would they have substantial, but within bell curve, advantages? Or would they likely not be a major factor on the podium?
I'm right there with you... actually quite curious about this now.
But, my gut feeling is that a transgendered female (formerly male) would indeed have a pretty strong advantage- not that just any person could dominate competition, but that they would be much more likely to than most other exceptions that have been granted in sporting leagues (like I discussed above).
However, I find the issue very interesting... so again, thanks for actually discussing that part with me . Also, I had edited my post above as I realized you had already noted that the MMA exceptions were, well... the exception not the rule for most sporting leagues.
I think there is evidence that an elite (or likely even borderline elite) male athlete, once trans, would have a strong relative boost to her performance as a woman.
this is why, IMO, the Olympic rules are so fascinating. The Olympics, for nearly all non-football/bat&ball games, is the highest level of competition, and they allow transwomen to compete as women, with strict limits.
I agree that it is very fascinating... however, the Olympics have made notable blunders in the past, and the IOC is rife with infighting and politics. Like any other agency, I imagine . However, the fact that they allowed it by no means determines whether Crossfit has to allow it, of course... it is interesting how seriously Crossfit competition / competitors take themselves, but knowing one in-person it's also just how they are for some reason. So, given that it's a private competition, they have every right to make their own call on this, admittedly fascinating, issue rather than follow lockstep with the IOC.
Also, Crossfit involves a lot of things like weightlifting- things where a male obviously has quite an advantage over a female, so the designation becomes very important for their competition. Obviously, the Olympics has weight lifting too, which is why as you say, their decision is fascinating... I would be especially interested if that decision would remain as-is if a transgendered athlete began to dominate the competition, or would only remain when it is more of a hypothetical / not results affecting decision.
Lesebyst wrote: But, I'd still think of them as biological male
Then you would be prejudiced.
Fine, I'll be prejudiced by merely treating them with respect and offering them the same opportunities I'd offer anyone else and you can be morally superior by thinking of transwomen as 'she' in your head. Glad we cleared that up. Can we get back to whether they should be allowed to compete against people who didn't change their gender?
I"m sure you've figured out how to handle those people that are neither XX nor XY genetically, of course.
Not to mention the medical literature on individuals with male anatomy but XX chormosomes, or vice versa.
I think you'll find that bringing genetics into discussions of sex and gender muddies, rather than clears, the situation.
1 out of every 2000 people have opposite chromosomes to their genitals, some even have XXY. Most of these people live a full life, have children never knowing they have the wrong genitals.
Some on the other hand have rough puberties as their body attempts to develop opposite to the genitals they developed in the womb. This leads to boys ending up with very feminine qualities or girls growing into traditional 'man-like' qualities. Sometimes parents rush to the doctors and do hormones to keep their child developing 'on course' with what society deems normal.
So a person who is XY who developed a vagina in the womb but had the puberty of a young male and developed as such would be 'legally a woman' and could compete, but a person who is XX who developed a penis in the womb but had the puberty of a woman cannot? The XY with a vagina would have a huge advantage in sports. I also don't think sports are going to do the effort of 'genetic testing' for every entry.
Also, Crossfit is based upon weightclass. Sports like wrestling are co-ed and are also based upon weightclass. It is not like she would be competing against others who are drastically smaller than her. Weightclass is a big equalizer. Are they worried people are going to cheat by chopping off wieners? What is the harm?
If the genetic testing for chromosomes became fast and easy, I wonder how many people would love to find out they have opposite chromosomes to their perceived gender and then have their marriages annulled or rights revoked based upon that? Yeah, let's make that happen...
Anybody arguing in this thread should at least be aware of these 2 concepts otherwise they're won't be able to have an informed opinion on the discussion.
1. Gender = Social ideas of male, female and intersex (clothes you wear, how you act, the way you walk, etc).
2. Sex = Biological ideas of male, female and intersex (pregnancy, semen, chromosomes, etc).
Cheesecat wrote: Anybody arguing in this thread should at least be aware of these 2 concepts otherwise they're won't be able to have an informed opinion on the discussion.
1. Gender = Social ideas of male, female and intersex (clothes you wear, how you act, the way you walk, etc).
2. Sex = Biological ideas of male, female and intersex (pregnancy, semen, chromosomes, etc).
Gender is also used to refer to the members of one or another sex, hence the confusion
Gender
a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
I guess when talking about transsexuals it's better to use gender as in your example.
I agree that it is very fascinating... however, the Olympics have made notable blunders in the past, and the IOC is rife with infighting and politics. Like any other agency, I imagine . However, the fact that they allowed it by no means determines whether Crossfit has to allow it, of course... it is interesting how seriously Crossfit competition / competitors take themselves, but knowing one in-person it's also just how they are for some reason. So, given that it's a private competition, they have every right to make their own call on this, admittedly fascinating, issue rather than follow lockstep with the IOC.
Well, it seems that whether they have the right to make the call as they see fit is a bit up in the air. I mean, New York state took that right away from professional tennis nearly 40 years ago.
States with strong identity rights laws and expansive definitions of public accomodations (hey California!) are going to start making calls in this area. It's damn near inevitable.
To go down a different rabbit hole, a lot of amateur events do have more harsh restrictions then elite stuff: what gear you can use, or even weight/height limits. See sprint football, for example. You could include height/weight limits for female competitors, or mandate a minimum body fat level.
Also, Crossfit involves a lot of things like weightlifting- things where a male obviously has quite an advantage over a female, so the designation becomes very important for their competition. Obviously, the Olympics has weight lifting too, which is why as you say, their decision is fascinating... I would be especially interested if that decision would remain as-is if a transgendered athlete began to dominate the competition, or would only remain when it is more of a hypothetical / not results affecting decision.
And I think it's a good reason to include them, especially locally. More data is better data, as they say.
I mean, it's possible that a transwoman could dominate, but it's also possible for a cis-woman to dominate. I guess the question is if trans-woman generally outperform cis women, both in terms of ceiling and average performance. Can a mediocre athlete as a man become a dominate female athelete?
Lesebyst wrote: Well biology lessons are going to be pretty awkward affairs in the future...
No, they really aren't. Biology lessons aren't social behavior lessons. You're problem is you're treating them as such in this discussion. Do you do the same when you encounter disabled people?
Lesebyst wrote: But, I'd still think of them as biological male
Then you would be prejudiced.
Fine, I'll be prejudiced by merely treating them with respect and offering them the same opportunities I'd offer anyone else and you can be morally superior by thinking of transwomen as 'she' in your head. Glad we cleared that up. Can we get back to whether they should be allowed to compete against people who didn't change their gender?
Being quietly racist doesn't stop you being racist, being quietly assured that a transgender woman in your employ is basically still a bloke in a frock is similarly holding a prejudice, despite how you claim you'll treat them with respect. You are not even granting the first respect of accepting them for who they wish to be. A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: [ A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.
I like that.
The nature of prejudice has changed in the last 100 years. There was a time where it was acceptable to celebrate a lynching in some parts of this country, but public reaction to overt bigotry has gotten increasingly uncomfortable since about the 1930s.
But, alas, we live in a society where everybody is convinced they are super clever, and by repeating a few phrases and avoiding a few words, they can appear tolerance.
Cheesecat wrote: Anybody arguing in this thread should at least be aware of these 2 concepts otherwise they're won't be able to have an informed opinion on the discussion.
1. Gender = Social ideas of male, female and intersex (clothes you wear, how you act, the way you walk, etc).
2. Sex = Biological ideas of male, female and intersex (pregnancy, semen, chromosomes, etc).
Gender is also used to refer to the members of one or another sex, hence the confusion
Gender
a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
I guess when talking about transsexuals it's better to use gender as in your example.
I think at one time gender and sex were interchangeable but with departments like sociology have now created a distinction between the two concepts and as far as I'm aware has been accepted by other academic disciplines such as biology, anthropology, psychology, etc and even many
societies in general seem to recognize this difference as I see many people in general making these same distinctions when talking about the subject of gender and sex.
But, alas, we live in a society where everybody is convinced they are super clever, and by repeating a few phrases and avoiding a few words, they can appear tolerance.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Here's Mrs Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian to explain more.
Polonius wrote: But, alas, we live in a society where everybody is convinced they are super clever, and by repeating a few phrases and avoiding a few words, they can appear tolerance.
If everybody appears tolerant surely we are getting to the point where more of us are genuinely tolerant?
Obviously suppressing repugnant opinions can be intolerance itself, but for some issues it's probably healthy to have some people be afraid of voicing their thoughts.
nkelsch wrote: [If the genetic testing for chromosomes became fast and easy, I wonder how many people would love to find out they have opposite chromosomes to their perceived gender and then have their marriages annulled or rights revoked based upon that? Yeah, let's make that happen...
That's extremely sensationalist, as you seem to be assuming that the law would be changed to define gender as what chromosomes a person has, ignoring what organs they happen to have on their body
You're also talking about civil rights again (marriage), and we all know how that is trending (that before too much longer, any two consenting adults will be allowed to legally marry in most developed countries). As opposed to talking about the requirements for competing in a professional sporting league.
If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.
Biology lessons aren't social behavior lessons. You're problem is you're treating them as such in this discussion. Do you do the same when you encounter disabled people?
Right so we need different definitions of male/female depending on what class we're in? Secondly, do I do ~what~ the same when I encounter disabled people? Treat them as if they were a social lesson? I... don't follow.
Lesebyst wrote: Being quietly racist doesn't stop you being racist, being quietly assured that a transgender woman in your employ is basically still a bloke in a frock is similarly holding a prejudice, despite how you claim you'll treat them with respect. You are not even granting the first respect of accepting them for who they wish to be. A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.
lol you think it's the same as being quietly racist? As much as you don't want to accept this, I don't have a dislike or distrust of them and I also don't think of them as inferior. God I'm such a prejudiced bastard, clinging onto this bizarre idea I've got into my head that sex is determined on a genetic level...
Biology lessons aren't social behavior lessons. You're problem is you're treating them as such in this discussion. Do you do the same when you encounter disabled people?
Right so we need different definitions of male/female depending on what class we're in? Secondly, do I do ~what~ the same when I encounter disabled people? Treat them as if they were a social lesson? I... don't follow.
Do you regard disabled people negatively? They are genetically inferior to 'the rest of us', by dint of their disability. Do you regard them differently because genetics tells us they are substandard?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Being quietly racist doesn't stop you being racist, being quietly assured that a transgender woman in your employ is basically still a bloke in a frock is similarly holding a prejudice, despite how you claim you'll treat them with respect. You are not even granting the first respect of accepting them for who they wish to be. A polite facade is not respect, it's avoiding an employment tribunal.
lol you think it's the same as being quietly racist? As much as you don't want to accept this, I don't have a dislike or distrust of them and I also don't think of them as inferior. God I'm such a prejudiced bastard, clinging onto this bizarre idea I've got into my head that sex is determined on a genetic level...
Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.
It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.
Do you regard disabled people negatively? They are genetically inferior to 'the rest of us', by dint of their disability. Do you regard them differently because genetics tells us they are substandard?
Of course not, that's a ridiculous assumption to make. I don't hold anyone to be inferior based on their genes/race/social status/hair colour/army choice. Do you?
Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.
You're mistaking the inability for my inner voice to switch from 'him' to 'her' when thinking about a transwoman as some precursor to a negative opinion. It's not.
Do you regard disabled people negatively? They are genetically inferior to 'the rest of us', by dint of their disability. Do you regard them differently because genetics tells us they are substandard?
Of course not, that's a ridiculous assumption to make. I don't hold anyone to be inferior based on their genes/race/social status/hair colour/army choice. Do you?
You've just used genetics as the reasoning for denying a transgendered woman the right to be regarded as a woman, the same genetics tell us that a person born with a disability is genetically inferior to a person born physically or mentally fully capable person, if we follow your argument that 'because biology', then applying that across the spectrum, we should be down(s) with treating the disabled as inferior, because they are genetically inferior. My point that we don't hold genetics against people in how we treat them, because that would be crass and gakky, just like we shouldn't hold genetics at birth against a person who identifies with and takes steps to become another gender. Your genetics argument only holds ground if we treat everyone according to how they appear genetically, in the case of the less able, that's less capable.
Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.
You're mistaking the inability for my inner voice to switch from 'him' to 'her' when thinking about a transwoman as some precursor to a negative opinion. It's not.
You've just admitted you would not recognise a transgendered person for the gender they identify with, you'd just be polite to their face. I believe you when you say you would not act on your prejudice, but you have just said you are prejudiced.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Yes, you are prejudiced, I don't know if you're a bastard as we've never met, but you are prejudiced if you hold a science definition not suitable for social definition over people's heads in social interaction.
It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.
Similar arguments have been used in the past to quite unpleasant ends.
I think the simple question here is what is the harm in allowing vs what is the harm in discriminating?
nkelsch wrote: [If the genetic testing for chromosomes became fast and easy, I wonder how many people would love to find out they have opposite chromosomes to their perceived gender and then have their marriages annulled or rights revoked based upon that? Yeah, let's make that happen...
That's extremely sensationalist, as you seem to be assuming that the law would be changed to define gender as what chromosomes a person has, ignoring what organs they happen to have on their body
You're also talking about civil rights again (marriage), and we all know how that is trending (that before too much longer, any two consenting adults will be allowed to legally marry in most developed countries). As opposed to talking about the requirements for competing in a professional sporting league.
If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.
Well, not all transgendered people need hormone treatment... hence the array of syndromes. Some already have the 'hormone machine' of the opposite gender and already developed as such and are not taking supplements, simply have the wrong genitals. There is a large range of differences in the transgendered community and they are in different states of flux based upon their own situation. It is very hard to make a 'one size fits all' as you could have two transgendered people who are now 'male' and one takes a ton of testosterone and one takes none. You can also have people who do not get the surgery and have a huge advantage by being cranking out the testosterone of a man naturally, gone through puberty of a male adolescent but was born with a fully functional vagina.
I think that applying ban/limited substance rules to them is fine. If your individual transgender journey takes you on a path where you take hormones or developmental medicines which run afoul of professional sports, then banning you on those grounds I think is reasonable. I also think case by case digression is also an option should those originations choose to do that. I think blanket bans on the 'meat between ones legs' does exclude a small but real aspect of society as there are numerous people who have 'nothing' down there, or have damage stuff down there due to parents decisions which simply fall between the cracks, let alone those who are undergoing or in-between correction surgery.
Seems dumb to me. Crossfit's weightclasses should be 'fair enuff' to sort out the transgendered competitors and not even make an issue of it. Not like a 300lb wall of muscle is competing against 120lb women. I would think they would want to be inclusive as 'crossfit competitions' are to get people into those gyms and getting people to gyms is to make money.
RiTides wrote: If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.
It isn't really an issue because they're only taking testosterone to bring their hormones up to normal male levels. As long as they fall inside the normal male range then they shouldn't have any advantage.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is my personal opinion that scientific truths should never yield to social ones.
But it isn't a scientific truth. Binary sex/gender is a social construct in the first place, one that exists because for many purposes it's convenient to deal with the most common situations and ignore the rare cases that break the general rule. But there's nothing inherent in the universe that defines "male" or "female", or says that "what's between your legs" or "what chromosomes you have" is the appropriate defining characteristic instead of "how your brain works". All you're doing is making the unjustified assumption that the social "truth" that you happen to prefer is actually the scientific "truth", and somehow superior to all others.
Does anyone else find Betty Bowers really hot? I dunno why but I really do.
Also, may have missed it, but can anyone explain the lawsuit to me? Aren't private organizations allowed to make their own rules? I'm not a lawyer so this one vexes me.
CrossFit is a weight loss and exercise company, yes? Isn't this "competition" really just a marketing ploy to bolster sales? She's seeking 2.5 million dollars because why exactly?
It's a money grab. Not everything LGTBQ related is truly about fighting for equality. Trans-people are well, people. And people often sue for self-serving means.
nkelsch wrote: I think that applying ban/limited substance rules to them is fine. If your individual transgender journey takes you on a path where you take hormones or developmental medicines which run afoul of professional sports, then banning you on those grounds I think is reasonable. I also think case by case digression is also an option should those originations choose to do that. I think blanket bans on the 'meat between ones legs' does exclude a small but real aspect of society as there are numerous people who have 'nothing' down there, or have damage stuff down there due to parents decisions which simply fall between the cracks, let alone those who are undergoing or in-between correction surgery.
I actually totally agree with this- treating it on a case-by-case basis would be fine, and appropriate, as you say... since every case may be different.
RiTides wrote: If you look at the link I posted above, the bar is quite high in a sporting league for someone to be allowed to take supplemental testosterone. A transgendered man (formerly a woman) would need to do so. Thus, this is a more nuanced discussion than whether or not someone has the right to be transgendered (they do)... the question is, what category do they fall into for sporting competition with strict requirements about what supplements athletes can/cannot ingest, etc.
It isn't really an issue because they're only taking testosterone to bring their hormones up to normal male levels. As long as they fall inside the normal male range then they shouldn't have any advantage.
It is an issue, because it's currently against the rules in almost every professional sporting league. Thus, an exception has to be granted (which, as described in the above articles, is extremely rare). I'm not necessarily saying that exception shouldn't be granted, on a case-by-case basis, but that it is in fact an issue that must be considered. Currently, athletes undergoing testosterone treatment would not be allowed to compete in most sporting leagues... and the details would likely need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, as nkelsch says.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's a "problem", I'm saying it's an "issue". There is some discussion here as if none of these things matter, and they might not to you . But, to a sporting league that regulates what athletes can and cannot take extremely closely, it matters quite a bit! Which is the whole point of discussing it- not to discriminate against anyone, but to find the appropriate place for transgendered athletes to compete (where there are choices) or if there are some leagues where it is not possible to do so due to the treatment required to maintain their body's levels.
So... yes, it is very much an issue to consider, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem just a unique case to consider.
