It's not at all. It's about how you write laws/regulations.
If a trans woman falls within your 'variance' are they allowed to play? If someone born female falls without are they banned?
Former teammate of transgender NCAA champion to speak at UI
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
If a trans woman falls within your 'variance' are they allowed to play? If someone born female falls without are they banned?
She shouldn't have had to take the medication to compete against females, she was born producing more testosterone than the normal range in females, she should have been allowed to compete organically, against people who had her level of testosterone, males.
See below. You shouldn't be evaluated where you after after taking altering medications. You should compete against youe baseline, as an organic athlete.
Sorry. Life and work. A person who goes through puberty as a male will have lifelong advantages is lung capacity, bone length, Q angles of femurs. Intermediate benefits in muscle mass, miss nuclei. Those will dissipate over years.
Just women, or do men need to be tested as well? I thought this whole issue is about protecting women's competitions. Now you are saying a person born female should have to compete against men because her testosterone levels are naturally too high. What about height should females over a certain height have to compete against males? Weight? Muscle mass? Elite athletes have special natural gifts that's what makes them elite.
Right, and you said testosterone was responsible for that. So are people born female who have much higher testosterone unfair competitors? Do we need to test everyone playing a woman's sport?
If someone is born male but has been on testosterone blockers and has lower testosterone than someone born female do they still have an unfair advantage.
Nearly 2% of Americans are born intersex.
Only 0.3% of Americans are trans.
Which is a bigger 'threat' to women's sports?
If you want to ban trans women shouldn't you also want to ban the intersex and anyone with an abnormally high testosterone level? It's about safety, right? Right?
If they go through puberty as a male, yes they are still advantaged . If a girl has high testosterone, but was born a girl, she is unlucky and lucky. It’s about fairness. Why do you care, you said it never happens, so banning it is more fair to the vast majority, and since it is such a small number of tranletes, why do you care
Foe international competition, sure, test them all.
Your height/weight whataboutism is pure distraction. If they have female level test, let them.play with females.
One of these days you liberals are going to wake up and realize the reason you fight so many dumb ****ing battles is you don't just deal with an issue and accept not everyone is going to be happy. There is always the dumbshit .1% that we might piss off so we need to have conversations ad nauseum instead of just making a decision and loving with it. People born with dicks competing against females should have been such a dumb idea that YEARS ago it should have been laid to rest, but, liberals don't want to hurt anyone's feelings so now we have a group of dumbshits undoing the hard work of rights advocates of the 70s-80s 90s.
As a republican I laugh.
Think of it like this:
I'm the guy sitting at a table listening to a guy get roasted by his wife because he fell for the "do you think she is pretty" trap and you didn't have the balls to answer so you said some dumb shit trying to be smart instead of just looking your spouse right back in the eye and saying "maybe she is, but she isn't as sexy as you and I guarantee she doesn't do that thing you do". So now you are going to spend the rest of your night limped dickly( made up word) explaining how beauty is relative and having dumb conversations about about systemic problems instead of having the balls to just cut the air and likely getting your wife to do that "thing she does".
Much lol.
Our discussion is about testosterone levels not transgender women. You are now proposing having different divisions of competition based on testosterone not birth sex. I doubt that position would have much support from anyone.
Athletes are tested in international competition for cheating all the time. Test the test levels and put them in the appropriate class.
Youbare going to have to accept that not everyone gets to be happy all time and pissing off single percentage biological freaks is probably going to have to be accepted.
As a side, I've advocated for an open division in athletics often. I think you would see a huge influx in biological males cheering for biological females ( against trans males)
My biggest issue isn't the actual banning of being able to compete, it's that transgender people seem to be the new boogieman. There have been so many laws passed in the last year or so just to IMO otherize them. A lot of time has been spent creating legislation to deal with a very tiny portion of the population when there are much more important issues impacting far more people that should be addressed.
its funny how "it's not hard, women should compete against women, men should compete against men" now turns into categorizing people by specific testosterone level for athletic competition
i guess i'm not as familiar with relative testosterone levels like you...so i'll defer to your expertise
You don't need to understand testosterone to give a clear definition of what a woman is, chromosomes, sure. That's 5th grade biology stuff.
but youre the one saying athletic competition should be based on testosterone level instead of chromosomes, not me
Umm…no. Once again, the left is all about science until it works against them. Then it’s “make up whatever shit we want and call it ‘science’!”
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling - PubMed
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Umm…no. Once again, the left is all about science until it works against them. Then it’s “make up whatever shit we want and call it ‘science’!”
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling - PubMed
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as...
Regardless of whose definition you use, are you going to ban them from competition too? Based on what? External genitalia? Testosterone level?
The point is that the claim about making women's sports 'safe' or 'fair' seems to only be concerned with whether or not the person has/had a penis - not what their chromosomes say, not whether they are bigger/stronger/or have a competitive advantage.
It doesn't matter to me. Let them play or don't. The only thing I ever take issue with is the folks denying that there is a definite inherent advantage that biological males have over females. Period.
You'd still get pushback but I think you'd find a much more congenial response from opponents if you took the honest approach of "Yeah, they have an advantage but there isn't enough of them to have their own leagues yet and they really like to play with what they consider to be their own gender." Instead you get people screaming, If they say they're a girl, they're a girl and therefore they have all of the same exact qualities of a girl and you can't prove they don't so therefore you must let them play with the other girls! And if you disagree with this, you're a transphobe!"
They do such a shitty job of bringing people to their side, IMO. I mean good grief, they see the results of Lia Thompson's last two years and want us all to believe her being trans didn't matter.
And you are the one saying we should be able to use common sense, thus, I'm asking you to provide a basic understanding of common sense, which you oddly seem to be avoiding Jennifer.
i see you saying we should use common sense, but then when faced with actual questions and situations that will have to be addressed when we just use common sense, i see you switching to basing things on a specific testosterone level rather than "common sense".
i don't pretend to have the answers for this..precisely because of the ridiculous places it leads (like saying athletic competitions should be based on specific testosterone levels)
also, the name's jim. jim neffer
Pleasure to meet you Jim, welcome to our little hole in the web. What prompted the changes from.being a casual observer for several.momths to multiple post per day starting a few weeks ago if I may ask?
I'm all for common sense. What I'm attempting to do with you is present how uncommon common sense seems to be in 2024. There isn't anything difficult about xx/xy. Unfortunately, since we don't seem to be able to use common sense I have presented a repeatable process for testing and appropriately placing athletes.
The problem is, before trans participation was a thing, we separated the sexes on the common knowledge that men would destroy the women in these events. Then you get a trans woman who wants to play as a female and wins the events. On one side you have the people taking issue with it by saying "Well no shit. Up until last week she wasn't allowed to play with the girls because of her inherent advantage." And the response from the advocates is, "No! She is a woman now and therefore all of the things that go along with being a woman, she has, and if you try to say she has properties of a man still then you're a transphobe!" And the response to that is, "Oh yeah...well, eff you! Ban her!"
boredom.
you can't keep just saying to use common sense when you yourself were presenting a non-common sense solution to an actual issue that has already occurred and will again in the future. clearly, "using common sense" isn't going to provide a way to deal with issues that have and will continue to arise
When common sense was disregarded ( the day of the general public being able to establish what a male and what a female is) we have had to transition to testible repeatable measures. I, like you, would prefer to get back to common sense. Common sense flew out the window when supposedly intelligent people stopped being able to identify or remember the basic teachings of their biology class. So, I will ask again, if we are not going to use repeatable science, what is a woman?
My issue is that it's clearly about bigotry. People make a big deal about sports but that's just a way to get in the door.
None of the arguments about competitive advantage hold up when they're ignoring all the other people who may have a sex based one as well. But there's not (currently) a war on those people so it's ignored.
It all comes down to male to female makes people uncomfortable.
Female to male is ignored.
There are no LAWS that prevent FTM from playing women's sports. They'd have a competitive advantage too. The leagues may have rules about hormone replacement, but that's ignored in the arguments. People want laws about those who make them uncomfortable.
Testosterone levels is only one factor that gives a biological male an advantage over a biological female. There is body size, lung capacity, speed, percent body fat, etc. Just testing testosterone levels is like a weather person predicting the weather by just looking at wind speed.
The male/ female categories exist because of the obvious advantages baked into the cake of males over females.
When a female possesses things like size or strength that give her an advantage over the other competitors, it could be due to work ethic, genetics, or some sort of biological rarity that gives them a leg up. If those girls decide to enter sports, then they get to win and everyone accepts that there are anomalies that occur within the same sex category that make some girls just better than others.
But when you allow a biological male into the fray, the advantage is not an anomaly anymore. It's a given. And just by being a male you are starting on third base. And that's the issue people have with it.
Yeah, disagree. That's not the source of the outrage.
Otherwise it would be limited to competitive sports and not rec leagues too.
And there would be similar concern with those born intersex (or have conditions that give them a biological 'advantage') but there aren't.
We allow the leagues to police themselves - unless it upsets our puritanical views.
but your suggestion of using testosterone levels wasn't born out of someone "deciding" or "disregarding" anything...it was in response to a case in which a biological female was ruled to have an unfair advantage and then barred from competition.
that situation is inherently linked to the issue of trans women competing in women's sports...and its a case that shows where just saying "use common sense" fails to provide a solution. unless you think ms caster should have been allowed to compete against women (since she was born female)...but your response was that she shouldn't be allowed to compete against women, which undercuts your own desire to simply "use common sense"
A female born female, would have never been questioned 20 years ago no matter how much testosterone they had, now, because we have had to account for transgenders instead of just using common sense, we need a repeatable test.
Before we go much further, why don't you take a stab at that common sense question of what a female is.
ms caster's issue came about well before any of the right's current obsession with fairness in women's sport
nice try, but you can't blame your inability to account for that on trans women
MS caster was told she would need to take test reduction medication in 2019...... good effort though.
You don't have the ability to define a simple word, you believe an incredibly rare condition should become the over arching rule for the general public, and you are willing to completely sacrifice woman's rights for the current talking point.
Welcome Jim, you will fit in well here.
Maybe we could have a MAGA couple at every event to determine who is and isn’t eligible.
Because it’s a man changing in a woman’s locker room. Just because said man wants others to call him a woman does not make him a woman, he’s still a man. Why is this so difficult for many leftists to understand?
disingenuous...she's been dealing with those questions since 2009
i'd argue that neither of us can define that simple word...i wasn't the one advocating for testosterone levels to supplant gender distinction in athletic competition - YOU WERE. i'm just pointing out that your own comments and desire to use testosterone levels instead of gender distinction shows that simply saying "use common sense" fails in application
