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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

But are you a doper male or female at that point.

Once you are known to be a doper, sex becomes irrelevant; you're mixing issues.

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

But are you a doper male or female at that point.

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:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/15/transgender-coming-of-age-paris-lees

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?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 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?

Would you sleep with a transgendered woman?

Only metric that matters, really.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

I'm just kidding you don't have to acknowledge it with a serious response (unless the comment was so unfunny you thought I was being serious).

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Only by your bigoted and ignorant definition of "real woman".

Woman, N. An adult female human being. -> Merriam-Webster

Female, N. Of or relating to the sex that can produce young or lay eggs. -> Merriam-Webster

According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_pregnancy] cisgender males cannot be pregnant - that is, cannot produce young or lay eggs.

I fail to see how it is bigoted to use the definition given by one of my favorite dictionaries.

 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!

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

The argument is over everyone, the dictionary came into the fray.

Ouze out of interest what is your definition of 'woman' or 'female'?

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

So is this the point someone mentions barren women?

 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.

Read the last sentence of what he wrote.

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.

Ouze wrote:

 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.

squidhills wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

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.)

 Lesebyst wrote:

 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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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?

 Lesebyst wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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

In other words... complicated.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Is race the same thing as gender?

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).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/ben_fowlkes/07/19/ufc.testosterone.problem/index.html

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.

 Redbeard wrote:

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.