Transgenderism

[Demitri_C]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 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.

Problem is how long is this going to take? Also are you going to involve someone in the transgender community when doing this research as they should be involved?

[sparrow1988]

22 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

As @chrisp65 said, Piers Morgan? Seriously? His opinion of a trans woman is probably a man who likes to dress up as a woman at the weekends.

However, the bit in bold would be the ultimate experiment. Would the transitioned Bolt, with the loss of strength and muscle associated with transitioning, be able to haul his massive frame ,which would remain largley unchanged, over 100m in 10.49 secs (the current 100m record for women)? There's only 0.9 secs in the difference.

15 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

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

How longs that going to take?

There is a lot of research out there already, and the people who already undertaking the research will continue doing it. In the meantime, why should trans women be excluded from women's sports when they are not over-proprtionally successful in those sports? Why is the reflex reaction to ban them or create a different category? Allowing them to compete would also help with further research as real-life empirical data could be gathered as opposed to theoretical studies being done. It might be unfair (might also not be - nobody can say for certain) on the women currently involved sport, but it would be for the better in the long run in ultimately determining whether or not trans women have an unfair advantage over the other women competing.

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, sparrow1988 said:

As @chrisp65 said, Piers Morgan? Seriously? His opinion of a trans woman is probably a man who likes to dress up as a woman at the weekends.

However, the bit in bold would be the ultimate experiment. Would the transitioned Bolt, with the loss of strength and muscle associated with transitioning, be able to haul his massive frame ,which would remain largley unchanged, over 100m in 10.49 secs (the current 100m record for women)? There's only 0.9 secs in the difference.

There is a lot of research out there already, and the people who already undertaking the research will continue doing it. In the meantime, why should trans women be excluded from women's sports when they are not over-proprtionally successful in those sports? Why is the reflex reaction to ban them or create a different category? Allowing them to compete would also help with further research as real-life empirical data could be gathered as opposed to theoretical studies being done. It might be unfair (might also not be - nobody can say for certain) on the women currently involved sport, but it would be for the better in the long run in ultimately determining whether or not trans women have an unfair advantage over the other women competing.

Again i was merely saying piers alluded to this. If people actually read my post i said i didnt agree with what he was saying but understand the point he making even if it was bad example.

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

As @chrisp65 said, Piers Morgan? Seriously? His opinion of a trans woman is probably a man who likes to dress up as a woman at the weekends.

However, the bit in bold would be the ultimate experiment. Would the transitioned Bolt, with the loss of strength and muscle associated with transitioning, be able to haul his massive frame ,which would remain largley unchanged, over 100m in 10.49 secs (the current 100m record for women)? There's only 0.9 secs in the difference.

There is a lot of research out there already, and the people who already undertaking the research will continue doing it. In the meantime, why should trans women be excluded from women's sports when they are not over-proprtionally successful in those sports? Why is the reflex reaction to ban them or create a different category? Allowing them to compete would also help with further research as real-life empirical data could be gathered as opposed to theoretical studies being done. It might be unfair (might also not be - nobody can say for certain) on the women currently involved sport, but it would be for the better in the long run in ultimately determining whether or not trans women have an unfair advantage over the other women competing.

Its easy for us men to say why should the trans be excluded but the womens opinion needs to be taken into consideration to. They have been the ones competing in women's sports after all before this debate even began

[sparrow1988]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Problem is how long is this going to take? Also are you going to involve someone in the transgender community when doing this research as they should be involved?

It takes as long as it takes. Why is there a rush to come to a decision as opposed to making the right decision? Also, there's a transgender woman called Joanna Harper undertaking research (at a Uni in the UK - Warwick or Loughborough maybe) into it already, so they are already invloved.

[sparrow1988]

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Again i was merely saying piers alluded to this. If people actually read my post i said i didnt agree with what he was saying but understand the point he making even if it was bad example.

I know that you weren't agreeing with him. I read your post. I just think it's ridiculous bringing Piers Morgan into a debate about a complex and nuanced scientific topic. If you can bring in opinions from experts who say similar then fine, but Piers Morgan says what he says for one reason, and one reason only - to keep Piers Morgan's name in headlines.

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

It takes as long as it takes. Why is there a rush to come to a decision as opposed to making the right decision? Also, there's a transgender woman called Joanna Harper undertaking research (at a Uni in the UK - Warwick or Loughborough maybe) into it already, so they are already invloved.

Thats good to know thanks for the info. No rush on my behalf but im sure the trans community will want answers immediately and the same with female atheletes alreafy competing. 

The more time it takes the more your going to have Sharon davies types scenario where she cant express her opinion without receiving hate mail

[StefanAVFC]

What about CIS women who are banned from competing because of higher than allowed levels of testosterone? Where do they fit into all of this?

What about FTM athletes with testosterone lower than the allowed level? Or those weighing less than their competitors?

Edited August 4, 2022 by StefanAVFC

[Demitri_C]

Just now, sparrow1988 said:

I know that you weren't agreeing with him. I read your post. I just think it's ridiculous bringing Piers Morgan into a debate about a complex and nuanced scientific topic. If you can bring in opinions from experts who say similar then fine, but Piers Morgan says what he says for one reason, and one reason only - to keep Piers Morgan's name in headlines.

I only bought him in as he raised the same point on a debate thats all.

And yes i agree piers is all for himself

[sparrow1988]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Thats good to know thanks for the info. No rush on my behalf but im sure the trans community will want answers immediately and the same with female atheletes alreafy competing. 

The more time it takes the more your going to have Sharon davies types scenario where she cant express her opinion without receiving hate mail

Of course they do, but stuff like this can't be proven immediately. It takes time unfortunately.

Opinions need to be backed up with facts on topics like this. She's been fairly sparse with providing the evidence to back-up her fears for the sport . She's free to express her opinion, but if she is challenged on it, which is what the majority of people will do, then she needs to provide evidence. Death threats and so on are not ok - just so we're clear.

[Demitri_C]

8 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

Of course they do, but stuff like this can't be proven immediately. It takes time unfortunately.

Opinions need to be backed up with facts on topics like this. She's been fairly sparse with providing the evidence to back-up her fears for the sport . She's free to express her opinion, but if she is challenged on it, which is what the majority of people will do, then she needs to provide evidence. Death threats and so on are not ok - just so we're clear.

Yeah i would agree with that sparrow.

She can be questioned of course its just pathetic we are seeing again people taking it too far with the death threats side of things

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

What about CIS women who are banned from competing because of higher than allowed levels of testosterone? Where do they fit into all of this?

What about FTM athletes with testosterone lower than the allowed level? Or those weighing less than their competitors?

The first question I guess the answer is it's a different subject, but with similar dilemmas.

The second question - I've never heard of a lower limit for testosterone, and as for weight, that's a red herring and completely irrelevant to the subject. Nevertheless you get weight categories for boxing. You get advantages in some sports for lower weight - Jockeys for example, in others it's not a factor at all, and in others it can be an advantage and disadvantage at the same time, and in others still, it's an advantage. Sports where weight is a major discriminator tend to have different categories for competitors, but it's (to me) a completely different thing to biological sex and to gender.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Problem is how long is this going to take? Also are you going to involve someone in the transgender community when doing this research as they should be involved?

It takes as long as it takes, its a relatively small sub set of people so getting good evidence is going to take a while.

Of course transgender people will be involved, its their metrics that are being measured. Without them it couldn’t be done.

If you mean the opinions or wishes of the transgender community being involved, that would be irrelevant in finding the basic performance stats and facts.

[Xela]

6 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

What about FTM athletes with testosterone lower than the allowed level? Or those weighing less than their competitors?

Would any FTM athlete ever get anywhere near elite level? They are at a massive disadvantage as they don't have the power/speed/strength/agility of a biological male. 

I think that is the crux of it really. Flip it around and that is why biological women feel threatened in the sporting arena. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Xela

[foreveryoung]

35 minutes ago, Xela said:

Would any FTM athlete ever get anywhere near elite level? They are at a massive disadvantage as they don't have the power/speed/strength/agility of a biological male. 

I think that is the crux of it really. Flip it around and that is why biological women feel threatened in the sporting arena. 

I'm unsure why it's such a big issue what Davis said. Bring in MTF athletes in to compete with biological females, an it will not be a even field! It'll be like some athletes being allowed to take enhancing drugs and the others not, it shouldn't be a argument.

[Demitri_C]

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

It takes as long as it takes, its a relatively small sub set of people so getting good evidence is going to take a while.

Of course transgender people will be involved, its their metrics that are being measured. Without them it couldn’t be done.

If you mean the opinions or wishes of the transgender community being involved, that would be irrelevant in finding the basic performance stats and facts.

The problem can you see the transgendee community not being involved?? I cant they are open and like to express their disaproval of things

[chrisp65]

28 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The problem can you see the transgendee community not being involved?? I cant they are open and like to express their disaproval of things

Can I see opinion, of any side in a debate, changing well researched scientific data? No.

Can I see chatter from any side distracting serious debate and informed decision making? Yes.

From all sides.

[StefanAVFC]

4 hours ago, Xela said:

Would any FTM athlete ever get anywhere near elite level? They are at a massive disadvantage as they don't have the power/speed/strength/agility of a biological male. 

I think that is the crux of it really. Flip it around and that is why biological women feel threatened in the sporting arena. 

I meant MTF, oops.

[sparrow1988]

12 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Bring in MTF athletes in to compete with biological females, an it will not be a even field! It'll be like some athletes being allowed to take enhancing drugs and the others not, it shouldn't be a argument.

Is this true though? Where is the evidence for it? I understand the immediate fears. I thought as much myself, but when you look into it and listen to people conducting research into the issue, and read articles from the researchers, the current evidence points to the contrary.

[StefanAVFC]

 

I hope...

No wait

Maybe they'll reg-

Nope again

Damn this is hard