‘Transgender’ athletes have ‘intolerable’ advantage over real women, new study....

[shack]

If genetically determined characteristics truly mattered, we couldn't have all those 'genetically-differing races' competing with each other. But we do, because the differences between 'races' are no more significant than the differences within them, and the same is true of gender.

I believe that that is where you are wrong.

The assumption is that all races are equal with some having certain small advantages over others. Who can possibly say that males and females develop anywhere close to equal physically? Anyone who feels that there is only a minor difference should have no issue with females competing against males across the board.

I am 100% for LGBTQ rights, but in the field of athletics/physicality transgender females have a verrry big advantage.

 

[oldjones]

çç

I believe that that is where you are wrong.

The assumption is that all races are equal with some having certain small advantages over others. Who can possibly say that males and females develop anywhere close to equal physically? Anyone who feels that there is only a minor difference should have no issue with females competing against males across the board.

I am 100% for LGBTQ rights, but in the field of athletics/physicality transgender females have a verrry big advantage.

I don't 'FEEL', I know what 'IS'. The science in the article above, re-states it: Men and women can compete with each other on reasonably equal bases WHEN the performance differences are minor. But I wind up arguing with guys who 'FEEL' that ALL females are so different from ALL males that the they could NEVER compete together. They never address the 'minor differences' case at all.

Eliminating major differences to make an even competition down to the minor advantages that keep it close and interesting has been a universal in sports since forever. Anyone who can't see that should be trying to abolish weight classes in boxing, and demanding open entry for all in the 100M.

I think Teejay might tell you different about 'races'. His assumption seems to be that all yellowish people with DNA originating in Asia are noticeably disadvantaged when competing against dark-brown people with African DNA. Yet we have no trouble with the two colours competing together (with other colours too, and without DNA race tests). He offers that as a reason for continuing the arbitrary division by gender. Even though no one has cited any evil outcome as a result of not dividing athletics arbitrarily by 'race'.

You closed with a mention of the the much smaller, more specialized issue of trans-gendered competitors, but that's of little interest to me and I haven't addressed it. If we have objective standards irrespective of gender, for determining competitor match-ups, who would care?
------
I may have mis-stated TJ's position. If I did I apologize, invite him to state it better himself, and hope he'll view it as a bonus opportunity

 

[basketcase]

...
What you refer to as "tinkering" is a joke really
One year people get eliminated for things like cough syrups which share properties with steroids while HGH is legal
Now they are trying to FORCE certain athletes to TAKE drugs in order to SUPPRESS their NATURAL hormone levels


As another example there was an issue with some female runner who was stripped of eligibility because their testing deems she is a biological male (despite being born without male genitalia)
The divisions as they exist now simply do not work, but at the same time we (in principle) acknowledge there are some severe genetic advantages ...

Amazing that the IIAF decided that abnormally high natural testosterone levels in women was unfair but abnormally high natural testosterone in men was perfectly fine.

Also HGH is banned by the IOC.

p.s. The discussion is sort of stupid. Sports at the professional/Olympic level are more about entertainment and profit than they are about fair competition.

 

[basketcase]

...
I am 100% for LGBTQ rights, but in the field of athletics/physicality transgender females have a verrry big advantage.

Which sports have seen a transgender woman champion?

I could totally see some athletes wanting to win by pretending to be a woman at a competition (it's happened) but I seriously doubt there would be many cis-men willing live as a woman and have the surgery just so they can call themselves a champion.

 

[JuanGoodman]

ççI don't 'FEEL', I know what 'IS'. The science in the article above, re-states it: Men and women can compete with each other on reasonably equal bases WHEN the performance differences are minor. But I wind up arguing with guys who 'FEEL' that ALL females are so different from ALL males that the they could NEVER compete together. They never address the 'minor differences' case at all.

Eliminating major differences to make an even competition down to the minor advantages that keep it close and interesting has been a universal in sports since forever. Anyone who can't see that should be trying to abolish weight classes in boxing, and demanding open entry for all in the 100M.

I think Teejay might tell you different about 'races'. His assumption seems to be that all yellowish people with DNA originating in Asia are noticeably disadvantaged when competing against dark-brown people with African DNA. Yet we have no trouble with the two colours competing together (with other colours too, and without DNA race tests). He offers that as a reason for continuing the arbitrary division by gender. Even though no one has cited any evil outcome as a result of not dividing athletics arbitrarily by 'race'.

You closed with a mention of the the much smaller, more specialized issue of trans-gendered competitors, but that's of little interest to me and I haven't addressed it. If we have objective standards irrespective of gender, for determining competitor match-ups, who would care?
------
I may have mis-stated TJ's position. If I did I apologize, invite him to state it better himself, and hope he'll view it as a bonus opportunity

Let me try:

1."I don't 'FEEL', I know what 'IS'"- I would argue that you don't "know" you only "feel". - "Men and women can compete with each other on reasonably equal bases WHEN the performance differences are minor"-who and how is that difference suppose to be determined? You know that USA women's soccer team lost to UNDER 15 boys team! There are, as far as I know, no records in professional sports that would have a better score for a woman than a man, not even one.
Sure women can compete against men at amateur level, for fun! Not at a professional level !

2. "Eliminating major differences to make an even competition down to the minor advantages that keep it close and interesting has been a universal in sports since forever." - again not a fact but a feeling that it should be so - First time women took part in Olympics was in 1900, and only in women's events. Here is a quote about Ancient Olimpic Games -"At the festival there were races for maidens of various ages. Their course was 500 feet, or one-sixth less than the men's stadium. " Nowhere does it say they competed against man as a matter of fact it said women run one-sixth less than man's stadium. Again all feelings and wanting something to be true, but facts say differently.

3. " division by gender." "dividing athletics arbitrarily by 'race'." - completely two different things. One gender, or more correctly sex is unquestionable , whoever has ball has advantage in physical competition and not a little but a lot as seen in the example of boys under 15 soccer team beating US women's national soccer team. Men of different races have at least a fighting chance, they all have balls and even though a lot will depend on genetics there is a lot of room for improvement by proper an extensive training, where with women such chance does not exist.

4. " issue of trans-gendered competitors, but that's of little interest to me and I haven't addressed it." - that's cool except that is the name of the thread. :biggrin:

 

[shack]

You closed with a mention of the the much smaller, more specialized issue of trans-gendered competitors, but that's of little interest to me and I haven't addressed it.

For some reason, I thought that THAT is what the title and topic of this thread is.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?682540-‘Transgender’-athletes-have-‘intolerable’-advantage-over-real-women-new-study#post6466293

 

[shack]

Which sports have seen a transgender woman champion?

Before discussing champions, let's start with how many transgender athletes there are across all sports. Extremely few, I suspect. How many can you name in how many sports? If there are very few transgender champs, that is the most likely reason.

 

[JuanGoodman]

Before discussing champions, let's start with how many transgender athletes there are across all sports. Extremely few, I suspect. How many can you name in how many sports? If there are very few transgender champs, that is the most likely reason.

Lets keep it that way.

 

[Darts]

I think women excel at long distance swimming. I could never swim Lake Ontario.

I vaguely remember the Canadian 4 "man" bobsleigh team had a woman. Also, I think many coxswains are female.

Female jockeys, auto racers, .........................

 

[JuanGoodman]

I think that the small number of transgender athletes is a reflection of a small number of transgender males or females in general. I think it's been blown out of proportion by MSM media to the point of lunacy. It's impossible to open a newspaper or to listen to the news without hearing some form of transgender issue being discussed. Imagine the amount of good that could be done if all this energy and focus were directed at some real, pressing issues. Like child hunger or homelessness. We could accomplish so much with relatively little resources that we already have. We really could make this world a better place if we concentrated our efforts on real issues instead of creating new and silly ones.

 

[oldjones]

Let me try:

1."I don't 'FEEL', I know what 'IS'"- I would argue that you don't "know" you only "feel". - "Men and women can compete with each other on reasonably equal bases WHEN the performance differences are minor"-who and how is that difference suppose to be determined? You know that USA women's soccer team lost to UNDER 15 boys team! There are, as far as I know, no records in professional sports that would have a better score for a woman than a man, not even one.
Sure women can compete against men at amateur level, for fun! Not at a professional level !

2. "Eliminating major differences to make an even competition down to the minor advantages that keep it close and interesting has been a universal in sports since forever." - again not a fact but a feeling that it should be so - First time women took part in Olympics was in 1900, and only in women's events. Here is a quote about Ancient Olimpic Games -"At the festival there were races for maidens of various ages. Their course was 500 feet, or one-sixth less than the men's stadium. " Nowhere does it say they competed against man as a matter of fact it said women run one-sixth less than man's stadium. Again all feelings and wanting something to be true, but facts say differently.

3. " division by gender." "dividing athletics arbitrarily by 'race'." - completely two different things. One gender, or more correctly sex is unquestionable , whoever has ball has advantage in physical competition and not a little but a lot as seen in the example of boys under 15 soccer team beating US women's national soccer team. Men of different races have at least a fighting chance, they all have balls and even though a lot will depend on genetics there is a lot of room for improvement by proper an extensive training, where with women such chance does not exist.

4. " issue of trans-gendered competitors, but that's of little interest to me and I haven't addressed it." - that's cool except that is the name of the thread. :biggrin:

1. If they can compete, then they can compete. That's settled, we agree. Now we're talking setting levels. But I think a new post or thread is the place for that detail.

2. You quoted something I said, but then ignored that, to talk about people who never even tried to do anything similar. Shall I say it again?

3. The thread title is a paste from an article that misrepresents the scientific study it 'reports'. What that study really says, as I have been saying since I quoted it in Post #2: “the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness.” It also mentions transgendered athletes, and says they can't be matched evenly with their bio-counterparts. Who ever said they could? Again not an issue I've ever addressed or cared about. Anyway easily solved when we deal with your Item 1, adjusting levels so competitors do compete on an even basis e.g. If they can't clear 6' in the high jump, they compete in the 'lower' class. Who cares what gender they say they are?

 

[JuanGoodman]

1. If they can compete, then they can compete. That's settled, we agree. Now we're talking setting levels. But I think a new post or thread is the place for that detail.

2. You quoted something I said, but then ignored that, to talk about people who never even tried to do anything similar. Shall I say it again?

3. The thread title is a paste from an article that misrepresents the scientific study it 'reports'. What that study really says, as I have been saying since I quoted it in Post #2: “the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness.” It also mentions transgendered athletes, and says they can't be matched evenly with their bio-counterparts. Who ever said they could? Again not an issue I've ever addressed or cared about. Anyway easily solved when we deal with your Item 1, adjusting levels so competitors do compete on an even basis e.g. If they can't clear 6' in the high jump, they compete in the 'lower' class. Who cares what gender they say they are?

I really want to agree with you, there will be no more silly or arrogant comments made by me anymore. And if I crossed the line before I apologize.
But I still think that if women competed against man at the top level, (world championship or the Olympics) there simply would be no women champions or not even women medalists. And if we did create a second category, lets say in the Olympics we would have a 100m finale race and another 100 m final race for those who can't run 100m faster than 10.49 seconds ( that is the women world record for 100 m) there is a possibility if not certainty that some men who can run faster would simply sand bag the Qualifiers run so they can compete in that final and win having unfair advantage. That would be unavoidable it seems to me. Plus what would be the point of creating such second competition in a first place, we already have it. It's called women 100m final.

Maybe somehow I'm not seeing the problem that you are addressing. I do not think that there is a problem that needs solving. And if we do try to solve it I think it will be impossible to regulate. (some men will simply pretend to be weaker in order to start in that second category and win having an advantage). Seems to me we would create more problems than solve. Is there really a need or desire to watch men and women compete against each other? It wouldn't prove anything, we would still have the real 100m run where only man would compete, the real final world championship run, or the real Olympic run and we would bring women athletes to a lower level of secondary competitors who can only compete because we had to tweak the rules to make "lesser" ( i'm not calling women lesser, I'm just saying that that's what it would really be like) women have some kind of a chance. I'm sure that's not what you want. But I do not see any other way of creating a system where it would work.

 

[Smallcock]

oldjones is in a teeny tiny minority on this one... having male and female pro athletes compete in the same leagues in the same sports is not something virtually anyone is going to get behind. When you're really intelligent, like oldjones is, you can get lost in abstract thought and propose and support some pretty crazy things.

 

[oldjones]

I really want to agree with you, there will be no more silly or arrogant comments made by me anymore. And if I crossed the line before I apologize.
But I still think that if women competed against man at the top level, (world championship or the Olympics) there simply would be no women champions or not even women medalists. And if we did create a second category, lets say in the Olympics we would have a 100m finale race and another 100 m final race for those who can't run 100m faster than 10.49 seconds ( that is the women world record for 100 m) there is a possibility if not certainty that some men who can run faster would simply sand bag the Qualifiers run so they can compete in that final and win having unfair advantage. That would be unavoidable it seems to me. Plus what would be the point of creating such second competition in a first place, we already have it. It's called women 100m final.

Maybe somehow I'm not seeing the problem that you are addressing. I do not think that there is a problem that needs solving. And if we do try to solve it I think it will be impossible to regulate. (some men will simply pretend to be weaker in order to start in that second category and win having an advantage). Seems to me we would create more problems than solve. Is there really a need or desire to watch men and women compete against each other? It wouldn't prove anything, we would still have the real 100m run where only man would compete, the real final world championship run, or the real Olympic run and we would bring women athletes to a lower level of secondary competitors who can only compete because we had to tweak the rules to make "lesser" ( i'm not calling women lesser, I'm just saying that that's what it would really be like) women have some kind of a chance. I'm sure that's not what you want. But I do not see any other way of creating a system where it would work.

Thanks for that thoughtful post. I won't argue your supposition about how gender-neutral Olympics might turn out, and I agree no one would be happy with that sort of result. But that's only because we all are so used to seeing things through that binary lens of gender. So we think there must be a women's champ as well as a men's champ, to keep audiences happy.

Competitors can compete without that. So what if the fastest woman would be 1500 places back? As we do things now, there's a man back there, doing his damnedest to be only 1490-somethingth. And he may be the only Maori/Asian/Etobicoker in the Games, but neither he nor 'his people' care; he's giving his all. And on the women's side, it's not like that 1500th place back is empty. Competitors compete; dividing therm by gender is as irrelevant as dividing them by race, by income level, by age, by language, by … that list is endless. The only one that a respectable case can be made for is the combination of skills and physique we call ability. Divide 'em that way. If someone wants to see women compete, or men, or just the best in that sport, they'll soon figure out when to watch what.

I don't see an athletic problem that needs fixing, but apparently some people do. They picked up an inflammatory report, started a thread, and began posting overstatements about women being unable to compete with men who were naturally superior. Kinda like, "Tap-dance? Don't make me laugh! Those Negroes all have natural rhythm. A skinny Limey like you shouldn't even try, Fred" That kinda brain-dead thouught-free stuff has always been a problem for me. I respond to the stuff that makes no sense, as I see it.

 

[JuanGoodman]

Thanks for that thoughtful post. I won't argue your supposition about how gender-neutral Olympics might turn out, and I agree no one would be happy with that sort of result. But that's only because we all are so used to seeing things through that binary lens of gender, so there must be a women's champ as well as a men's champ, to keep audiences happy. Competitors can compete without that. So what if the fastest woman would be 1500 places back? As we do it now, there's a man back there, doing his damnedest to be only 1490-somethingth. And he may be the only Maori/Asian/Etobicoker in the Games, but neither he nor 'his people' care; he's giving his all. And on the women's side, it's not like that 1500th place back is empty. Competitors compete; dividing therm by gender is as irrelevant as dividing them by race, by income level, by age, by ;language, by … that list is endless. The only one that a respectable case can be made for is the combination of skills and physique we call ability.

I don't see an athletic problem that needs fixing, but apparently some people do. They picked up and inflammatory report, started a thread, and began posting overstatements about women being unable to compete with men who were naturally superior. Kinda like, "Tap-dance? Don't make me laugh! Those Negroes all have natural rhythm. Why's a skinny Limey like you even trying, Fred?" That kinda brain-dead thouught-free stuff has always been a problem for me. I only respond to the stuff that makes no sense, as I see it.

I respectfully disagree, although I'm not even sure why I'm arguing my point since I don't really watch sports all that much if ever at all! :biggrin:
My only objection would be that if we didn't have women champions, women Olympic gold medalist or women world record holders it would be a great disservice to women and girls in general. I don't think Girls would participate in sports at the entry level if they didn't have women heroes to look up to.

 

[TeeJay]

I think Teejay might tell you different about 'races'. His assumption seems to be that all yellowish people with DNA originating in Asia are noticeably disadvantaged when competing against dark-brown people with African DNA. Yet we have no trouble with the two colours competing together (with other colours too, and without DNA race tests). He offers that as a reason for continuing the arbitrary division by gender. Even though no one has cited any evil outcome as a result of not dividing athletics arbitrarily by 'race'.

Kinda true but way overgeneralized
There are sports where east Asian athletes absolutely dominate the medals podium, but those sports are certainly not things like running events

ALL races have genetic advantages and disadvantages over each other

 

[TeeJay]

Also HGH is banned by the IOC.

NOW

For years HGH was 100% legal & used for decades
1992 was the first Olympics it was an issue (banning stated in 89)

 

[oldjones]

ç

Kinda true but way overgeneralized
There are sports where east Asian athletes absolutely dominate the medals podium, but those sports are certainly not things like running events

ALL races have genetic advantages and disadvantages over each other

Just as you claim ALL men have over ALL women. Yet we manage to have meaningful competitions unrestricted by race. Why can't we manage unrestricted gender competitions equally well?

 

[JuanGoodman]

ç Just as you claim ALL men have over ALL women. Yet we manage to have meaningful competitions unrestricted by race. Why can't we manage unrestricted gender competitions equally well?

That is the CRUX of the problem! Men, all men in general are MUCH stronger than all women in general. That is an undisputed truth! It is so because man have balls that produce testosterone, that gives us bigger muscle mass naturally and increased endurance!!! That fact makes it virtually impossible for women to compete against man in any physical activity as an equal opponent. Men will have huge advantage.

Races however work completely differently. If they are all men of different races at least they have a fight chance. They all have balls and the advantage that comes with it, they all have testosterone producing balls! Of course genetics will have a play in it but not to such a extent as difference beteew men and women. With proper and extensive training men in general lower the genetic advantage to minimum or all together. Women CAN'T do that!!!

You are looking at this problem from a wrong prospective from the start. We have to agree that as it right now in nature Men are MUCH MORE STRONGER than women in GENERAL. There might be an exception here and there but it is not a rule. On average Men are stronger.

And this is the whole point of this thread. A transgender athlete, who is still physically a Man has a huge advantage over women athletes because of my above statement, and should not be allowed to compete against women!

Men are stronger physical than women, is not a racist or bigoted statement. It is a fact of nature. Black widow spider female is much stronger than male black widow spider, its nature.

 

[oldjones]

That is the CRUX of the problem! Men, all men in general are MUCH stronger than all women in general. That is an undisputed truth! It is so because man have balls that produce testosterone, that gives us bigger muscle mass naturally and increased endurance!!! That fact makes it virtually impossible for women to compete against man in any physical activity as an equal opponent. Men will have huge advantage.

Races however work completely differently. If they are all men of different races at least they have a fight chance. They all have balls and the advantage that comes with it, they all have testosterone producing balls! Of course genetics will have a play in it but not to such a extent as difference beteew men and women. With proper and extensive training men in general lower the genetic advantage to minimum or all together. Women CAN'T do that!!!

You are looking at this problem from a wrong prospective from the start. We have to agree that as it right now in nature Men are MUCH MORE STRONGER than women in GENERAL. There might be an exception here and there but it is not a rule. On average Men are stronger.

And this is the whole point of this thread. A transgender athlete, who is still physically a Man has a huge advantage over women athletes because of my above statement, and should not be allowed to compete against women!

Men are stronger physical than women, is not a racist or bigoted statement. It is a fact of nature. Black widow spider female is much stronger than male black widow spider, its nature.

No we do not have to agree. In fact the very article that began this thread, was reporting on — and misconstruing — a scientific study that says the opposite; that there are many instances where men and women could compete as evenly matched competitors, because the strength differences are not significant. Although as scientists they were careful not to make statements about ALL of either gender. Nor about ALL transgendered athletes.

I once had a lengthy opportunity to consider a matchup between a trans-woman and a bio-woman, when I spent and hour or two at a LandLord Tenant Tribunal watching a former-male argue his Landlady didn't really intend to occupy the apartment she was being evicted from. I'd give you odds my 130lb friend the landlady could have beaten 170lb Theresa in most any sport. But that's not true of ALL landladies. And the only way to find out, is to set up some matches. We'd just hafta figure out how to even the odds, like we commonly do when competitors are seriously mismatched.

I don't see why you find that so hard to imagine. Afraid you'll lose?