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.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

 Lesebyst wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

Do your own google search.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304854804579234030532617704

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.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

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?

 Cyporiean wrote:

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh, it certainly does, just like we'd resort to personal insults if a racist started ranting about offensive things.

Cause that wins loads of arguments.

Want to stop being called a bigot? Stop using insulting terms like "delusion".

Provide evidence like Cyporiean did rather than have a little strop. Stropping gets you nowhere, counter arguments win the day.

Sigh. Remember the part where taking female hormones negates the former advantage of starting with a male body?

Please, tell me all about how taking female hormones gives men child-bearing hips.

I have child-bearing hips even though I was born a man.

I am a transwoman, by the way.

I know, I know, anecdotal evidence, and what does the anecdote of a delusional freak mean anyway?

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.

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

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?

Newflash! I didn't choose to be a transwoman!

 stanman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

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?

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?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Newflash! I didn't choose to be a transwoman!

Were you forced to undergo surgery or hormones against your will?


Not challenging how you feel internally or may have always felt inside, but elective surgery or hormone therapy is a choice.



.

Oh, I'm completely pre-op.

Doesn't make me any less a transwoman, or any less offended by the idiot calling me delusional.

I am a transchronos Neanderthal, but I'm 3rd generation, so it no longer counts.

 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?

 Lesebyst wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Thank you.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 stanman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 iproxtaco wrote:

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).

 daedalus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

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.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:

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.

 daedalus wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

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).

 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.

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.

 Lesebyst wrote:

 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.

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."