Switch Theme:

Transgender athlete sues CrossFit for banning her from competing as female  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

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.
   
Made in us
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne





Killeen

 Polonius wrote:

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.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/07 17:11:23


“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers  
   
Made in gb
Morphing Obliterator






 Polonius wrote:
 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.

See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 easysauce wrote:
Acceptance of transgender is one thing,

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ZultanQ wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/07 17:17:21


 
   
Made in us
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne





Killeen

 Polonius wrote:
 easysauce wrote:
Acceptance of transgender is one thing,

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".

“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers  
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Polonius wrote:

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.

 Polonius wrote:

And I believe she asked what the trans policy was, and was told they have to compete in their biological gender.


Apparently it was an anonymous email, the reply to which she disputed.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne





Killeen

 Polonius wrote:

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.

“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers  
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 ZultanQ wrote:

"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.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 ZultanQ wrote:
I don't know anybody who has the right to identity and I don't remember seeing anything about it in the US Constitution.


I don't know anyone that has a right to a fair competition either. You're dodging the point.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne





Killeen

 Polonius wrote:
 ZultanQ wrote:

"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.

“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers  
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 ZultanQ wrote:


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?
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 ZultanQ wrote:

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?

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 ZultanQ wrote:
Just because a transwoman feels the same as a biological woman doesn't mean he is.


Well, it's polite to refer to transwomen as she, but you don't seem interested in being polite.

And how is a trans woman different from a ciswoman? What makes a woman biologically female? Is a cis-woman without those traits not female?

   
Made in us
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne





Killeen

 Polonius wrote:
 ZultanQ wrote:


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.

“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers  
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

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.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 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.
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.


Hard reality: Legally female but with an XY chromosome set that cant be changed and the musculature is based on this

But its the claim for $2.5M that gets me. How can she be $2.5M worth of upset?

Can we claim damages for the distress caused by this offensive lawsuit?

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 ZultanQ wrote:

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.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 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.

Chess no.
Power lifting yes.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 ZultanQ wrote:

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.

 ZultanQ wrote:

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.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 dogma wrote:
 ZultanQ wrote:

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

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 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.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

 Frazzled wrote:
 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.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




WA

 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.

"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa

"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch

FREEDOM!!!
- d-usa 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Frazzled wrote:

Genetically she's still male though.


So was Renee Richards.

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't change the muscular and bone structure they built before the change.


It does change the muscular structure. In fact, that's largely the point.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/07 18:12:05


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




WA

 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.


Reminds me of this good laugh of a read:
http://kotaku.com/5910857/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is

"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa

"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch

FREEDOM!!!
- d-usa 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

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.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in us
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne





Killeen


 Polonius wrote:
 ZultanQ wrote:

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!"

 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.


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.

“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers  
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have


So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Sheffield, City of University and Northern-ness

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.

   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: