Transgenderism

[Risso]

It's slightly odd that on this subject, white middle class straight male football fans seem to be the most reasonable and willing to consider things objectively.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Risso

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, Risso said:

 seem to be the most reasonable and willing to consider things objectively.

This is quite a verbose way of saying "agree with me"  

[sparrow1988]

6 hours ago, Risso said:

99% of the time, a trans person living their life as they see fit causes no issues with anybody else. @blandy summed it up perfectly above, so I won't repeat his excellent comments. But pretending that being a male now or once upon a time isn't potentially problematic is ridiculous, and does nothing to further either trans or women's rights. Trying to compare a natural athletic ability that certain people have to the advantage males have over females is nonsensical. If you did away with male/female separation in sport as you appear to be suggesting, then in most sports women would never win anything again. Even with sports, eg boxing, there are sub-divisions based on weight to level things up. Can you imagine the damage Tyson Fury would do to the average middleweight, never mind a female boxer? There has to be protection for hard won rights for women. That doesn't mean that trans women should be excluded, but there needs to be sensible coversations without hatred being chucked around from both sides.

Im not suggesting to do away with male/female segregation in sports. What I’m saying is until it’s proven (the opposite is accepted by experts in the field as true at the moment) that until transgender women are proven to have an unfair advantage in sports then what’s the problem with them competing? Let’s see if Lia Thomas who won the the swimming competition in USA a while back ends up competing at a consistently high level.

And regarding your boxing analogy, if a woman transitions to a man, takes up boxing and works her way up to a title fight against the heavyweight champion of the world then they have more than likely earned that fight so let them at it.

And of course there needs to be sensible conversations. That’s a given. But until Sharron Davies can back up her opinion with facts then maybe she shouldn’t be involved in such conversations, because at the moment there is no evidence that corresponds to her view. 

[blandy]

Some wildly off topic posts that would have been better done by pm have been removed

[Risso]

11 hours ago, Davkaus said:

This is quite a verbose way of saying "agree with me"  

Not at all. Have a look on Twitter, then come back here.

[Stevo985]

9 hours ago, sparrow1988 said:

if a woman transitions to a man, takes up boxing and works her way up to a title fight against the heavyweight champion of the world

That will literally never happen. Ever

[sparrow1988]

25 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

That will literally never happen. Ever

I know. I was countering the point about Fury smashing middleweights and what damage he woud do. But if by some freakish miracle it did actually happen, then that person would have earned that fight.

[Risso]

Women transitioning to men and then taking part in men's sport isn't regarded as an issue, as I'm sure sparrow is all too aware.

[sparrow1988]

17 minutes ago, Risso said:

Women transitioning to men and then taking part in men's sport isn't regarded as an issue, as I'm sure sparrow is all too aware.

I'm well aware that it will most likely never be an issue. I'm also well aware of the fact that men transitioning to women is a potential issue. At the moment, it isn't the major issue that it's made out to be. I was also sceptical about it at first. I saw Laurel Hubbard qualify for the olympics at thought to myself that it didn't seem right. I thought the same when Lia Thomas won at that swimming event, but after reading a bit about it and listening to experts explain the subject, I am currently of the opinion that it is not an issue. It has the potential to become one, and my opinion is subject to change should contrasting evidence arise, but at the moment my opinion is that, it isn't an issue. You may not agree with my stance, but I'm not welded to this position either. I'm willing to consider any opinions backed up with facts to the contrary. At the moment Davies' comments/opinions do not fall into this category.

[chrisp65]

The medical evidence looks a bit mixed at the moment. I was reading through some papers on the BMJ website. Some studies are saying there is a significant advantage, some are saying that after 2 years of medication they couldn’t trace any advantage, that the base line advantage of teenage testosterone was about 25% advantage initially, 12% advantage after a year and down to margin of error and variables after 2 years. But lots of caveats on what the sport was, taking averages not taking Olympian bodies, wildly different results in different people and different tests.

So on my little bit of research over recent months, it looks like the scientific jury is out.

So for what it’s worth, it feels like whilst we don’t know the science and whilst there are so many variables. Perhaps it is right and correct to have a third category for those that are outside of some set norms and parameters, physiologically.

 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, sparrow1988 said:

I know. I was countering the point about Fury smashing middleweights and what damage he woud do. But if by some freakish miracle it did actually happen, then that person would have earned that fight.

I think piers morgan once highlighted this. He said if usain bolt ever transitioned into a woman is it ok for him to be involved in womens sports? Same with mayweather in boxing. Obviously not gonna happen but i get what he is getting at

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I think piers morgan once highlighted this. He said if usain bolt ever transitioned into a woman is it ok for him to be involved in womens sports? Same with mayweather in boxing. Obviously not gonna happen but i get what he is getting at

Of course putting a transitioned Mayweather in the ring with a woman wouldn’t be fair.

For starters, he’d literally be 590mm shorter than the world’s tallest woman, with the obvious reach advantage she would have she could just do that thing where they hold your head with one hand so your swing doesn’t reach, and punch you repeatedly with the other hand.

We need to base this on science and research, not Piers Morgan’s click bait opinions.

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Of course putting a transitioned Mayweather in the ring with a woman wouldn’t be fair.

For starters, he’d literally be 590mm shorter than the world’s tallest woman, with the obvious reach advantage she would have she could just do that thing where they hold your head with one hand so your swing doesn’t reach, and punch you repeatedly with the other hand.

We need to base this on science and research, not Piers Morgan’s click bait opinions.

And who is going to do the science and research? Any ideas? 

How longs that going to take?

By the way im not saying or defending piers here just stating what he said

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Perhaps it is right and correct to have a third category for those that are outside of some set norms and parameters, physiologically.

That's pretty much what Sharon Davies has said.

It's really difficult (the issue) because imagine if you are a person who has undergone all the traumas of feeling like you're in the wrong body, of coming to terms with that situation, of dealing with family and friends, explaining...then going through re-assignment to become the true gender that you knew yourself to be and then being told that you are no longer allowed to compete in swimming races, because you are not classified as a woman. That feels like it has unfairness and exclusion built in.

On the other side of the discussion, imagine you have trained and competed to get to the top of your sport, as a born female, and then along comes someone who did the same, but as a male, with the advantages of testosterone on strength and size, and who has then entered the sport of women's swimming, bringing some of that competitive advantage with them and is able to beat you to medals or prize money. That too feels like it has competitive unfairness built in.

So there's no perfect solution, no answer where everyone wins. An "open" category for competitors is kind of a halfway house giving people races to compete in, but the statistical number of trans swimmers (or any sport's competitors) is going to be nowhere near the large, er, pool, of people that men's or women's events have, so where's the future in a sport with hardly any competitors? and by having an event for "open" competition, are the competitors in it going to be kind of pointed at and have things said about them and all the rest, when all they really want, and have wanted all their lives is to "fit in" and not be some kind of outsider.

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

That's pretty much what Sharon Davies has said.

It's really difficult (the issue) because imagine if you are a person who has undergone all the traumas of feeling like you're in the wrong body, of coming to terms with that situation, of dealing with family and friends, explaining...then going through re-assignment to become the rue gender that you knew yourself to be and then being told that you are no longer allowed to compete in swimming races, because you are not classified as a woman. That feels like it has unfairness and exclusion built in.

On the other side of the discussion, imagine you have trained and competed to get to the top of your sport, as a born female, and then along comes someone who did the same, but as a male, with the advantages of testosterone on strength and size, and who has then entered the sport of women's swimming, bringing some of that competitive advantage with them and is able to beat you to medals or prize money. That too feels like it has competitive unfairness built in.

So there's no perfect solution, no answer where everyone wins. An "open" category for competitors is kind of a halfway house giving people races to compete in, but the statistical number of trans swimmers (or any sport's competitors) is going to be nowhere near the large, er, pool, of people that men's or women's events have, so where's the future in a sport with hardly any competitors? and by having and event for "open" competition, are the competitors in it going to be kind of pointed at and have things said about them and all the rest, when all they really want, and have wanted all their lives is to "fit in" and not be some kind of outsider.

Very good post.

Funny enough i suggested what chrisp had said about a third category (which i think is a good solution) and i got mocked for saying it. (Pages back) The response was "lets single them out as thats thr right answer" 

If thats how transgenders feel then not much can be done as your either upsetting them or women born as women. 

Its just never going to end the debate.

[chrisp65]

I’ve sort of stayed out of the Sharon Davies debate, just like I’ve stayed out of the JK Rowling debate. 

It’s a side issue, what pronouncements a celebrity makes, and how those pronouncements are then treated on social media. I have to be honest, I have very little interest in whether Kevin4657736 on tiktok has threatened a celebrity.

But yes it’s not going to be a good outcome for everyone, whatever the final answer is. And it might be a different answer in different sports. 

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

And who is going to do the science and research? Any ideas? 

How longs that going to take?

By the way im not saying or defending piers here just stating what he said

Scientists and medical professionals will continue doing the research they are already involved in. I’ve been reading papers on the British Medical Journal website.

I haven’t kept up to speed on what Alan Sugar or Nigel Farage think.

[Seat68]

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

And who is going to do the science and research? Any ideas? 

How longs that going to take?

By the way im not saying or defending piers here just stating what he said

You are using the Morgan premise of a woman transitioning or man transitioning is basically a change of clothes and not a complete body transformation. Stop going to Morgan for science advice. You paraphrasing him without adding a counter point is essentially agreeing with him. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve sort of stayed out of the Sharon Davies debate, just like I’ve stayed out of the JK Rowling debate. 

It’s a side issue, what pronouncements a celebrity makes, and how those pronouncements are then treated on social media. I have to be honest, I have very little interest in whether Kevin4657736 on tiktok has threatened a celebrity.

But yes it’s not going to be a good outcome for everyone, whatever the final answer is. And it might be a different answer in different sports. 

Indeed. I've read what the two people have said/written, just to educate myself a bit, really and like everyone on here has said there's nothing remotely "death threat" worthy in what they've said. It's interesting that they've spoken from their own life experiences - Davies being cheated out of medals by East German doping athletes and JKR being the victim of domestic abuse by a male. I think it gives some context to the way they think, perhaps and maybe why they have their views.

It's one of those Hegelian dialect things, where a thesis v an anti-thesis leads to synthesis - my idea of freedom conflicts with your idea of freedom, so neither of us can be free until we both agree to be slaves.

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

You are using the Morgan premise of a woman transitioning or man transitioning is basically a change of clothes and not a complete body transformation. Stop going to Morgan for science advice. You paraphrasing him without adding a counter point is essentially agreeing with him. 

Ridiculous statement seat.