If you mean Trump and brexiteers, I agree!
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
You don’t need to be an expert to know that biological males have inherent advantages when it comes to physicality when compared to biological females. The fact that you think you need experts to make that distinction summarises why this discussion is going to go round in circles because people want to overly complicate matters and obfuscate the issue.
Trump was probably a bad example in this context as he was a known quantity before he was voted in. But Brexit is a clear example of a population (and even the politicians) failing to have even a basic grasp of the consequences and complexities involved in the issue and voting based on near total ignorance and misinformation.
Complex and nuanced issues should never be decided upon by a voting population. If it was the case women would never have got the vote, civil rights for people of colour would never have been enacted etc it's why populist politics are so dangerous.
I didnt think Trump would be this harmful to the political and societal climate when he was elected. I expected an incompetent buffoon who would use his presidency to boost the status of his resorts. And while hes definitely an incompetent buffoon, he did way more damage than I had anticipated. Not only to the US, but even global political discourse.
Granted. I knew very little of "TRUMP" before his presidency aside from seeing the odd clip of his dumb reality show.
You do need to be an expert to figure out what gives this advantage and if certain thresholds (in testosterone for exemple) can be put in place to make sure the playing field is leveled.
You not understanding it's a complicated issue summarises why this discussion is going round in circles.
I'm no expert but I know males have different muscular, skeletal and hormonal development to females, and research seems to be showing that simply limiting testosterone levels isn't enough to negate that development and make it fair for males to compete with females.
You're right in that it's up to qualified people to see if there's a way to negate the obvious advantages, but I don't think women's sports should become a trial for these methods.
Just to add to your post - there's also cardiovascular implications which means males are able to perform aerobic (and anaerobic) exercise for longer and deeper periods than biological females. @Oly Francis this is basic biology.
The complication arises from trying to understand what the right solution is. Limiting testosterone is an inadequate solution, and to be honest, there isn't going to be a one-size fits all solution either. The most fair, and one that keeps integrity and equity in sport is to have an open or 3rd category for trans athletes. The wrong solution, in every case, is to just tell female athletes to deal with it, or think that testosterone limits is enough.
Maybe, but that's for science to decide, not by some folks on a forum who claim it's "basic biology".
On top of that, there's debates among scientist about the fact that women could have a superior aerobic fitness so it shows that it's even less "basic biology" and the evidence that you're not qualified at all to claim the issue is simple.
Well that's exactly the point. Having a basic understanding of biology will show that limiting testosterone is an inadequate solution, as it doesn't even take into account the cardiovascular, muscular, skeletal etc distinct differences. It's just a hormonal solution (and again, it doesn't take into account the years of testosterone production and metabolisation prior to someone transitioning), or the inherent physical differences between men and women that will exist post transition.
As for the 'science to decide' - that's exactly what's happening and it's why the bodies governing sport are limiting trans participation until there is a better solution, as it is inadequate. Bodies such as World Athletics, World Aquatics, World Rugby, and the Cycling body (I forget the name), to name a few.
Last edited:
case in point why transphobes suddenly get behind wedge issues like this despite never giving a single toss about women's sports their entire lives
Someone who drops their support for transgender causes in general just because of a rather niche and complex, but hotly debated, part of the discussion clearly wasn't too serious in their support from the start. In my opinion
Exactly. The inability to understand that the overall issue can be supported but niche issues need resolving is a strange one we see often today.
Caster's case has always been a difficult one and I've got a massive amount of sympathy for her. It's also a particularly complex situation because women's sport historically would always have treated her as a woman. Like the doctors and nurses at her birth they'd basically have looked at the external genitalia and based a decision on that.
I'll try and ignore the racist elements of the initial accusations though they were certainly a factor. I can't help but feel she's now become the victim of the argument over using testosterone as a key measure for participation.
As soon as you try to unravel the story for any individual, it's an intensely personal one. For Caster it meant a kind of screening with medical and scientific testing that seems massively intrusive and still doesn't have an easy resolution.
Absolutely, it's a minefield and a very personal and mentally taxing one at that.
Luckily , common sense just prevailed in cycling
Transgender women barred from female events as UCI takes 'precautionary measure'
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/66203709
---
This was not an anti-trans move, its just protecting the fairness of womens sports and thus protecting womens rights. Trans athletes will be able to compete against each other in a different
class, if it was anti-trans they would be banned from taking part completely.
The majority of my posts in this forum are in the "Manchester United women" section and I follow Manchester United Women equally or more than Uniteds mens team. Same with my swedish club Hammarby, if anything I am supporting the womens team extra since they need that extra push compared to the mens team who already have a massive following.
I am also one of the key persons behind "Fansens värvning Brynäs damlag" which is a org set up to support Brynäs IFs womens hockey team financially and have spent loads of free time on it. So I am very much invested in womens sports and would be enraged if trans players were allowed to ruin the fairness of the game! I have been fighting against people belittling womens sports for decades. But people just create their own reality to suit their agenda, nothing I can do about that.
The easiest defense for people wanting trans women to dominate womens sports is to attack people opposed to it personally, as they have no valid arguments for pushing the actual inclusion of trans women in female sports. if they can silence people like me by labeling me a bigot, anti-trans etc they have won a small victory, but most people see through it.
Calling people transphobes as a weapon is far more classless than debating 1% of trans rights or in this case the right for born males to compete in womens sports. The use of the term transphobia to bully and silence individuals who have nothing against trans people in general is highly disturbing. One day you are at the local pride parade and wearing your pride sports jersey, and the next day you are being called a bigot by people on an online forum who have no idea who you are or what you are doing in life, thats just the sad reality we live in these days.
Anybody that does not agree 100% with and bow down to the trans communitys every wish is billed as transphobic.
Last edited:
just because you wore a rainbow t-shirt at pride doesn’t mean you cannot be bigoted against queer, gay, or trans people. It’s not a membership plan to subscribe to and automatically get privileges.
I have not done any of that, neither in real life or on this forum. Just because you are pro-trans does not mean you can label people whatever you want and attack them with no basis. Even if you believe that is within your privilege, it still isn´t. You may have an excuse to try to bully people into submission because everyone is afraid to be targeted by the trans-community that they wont stand up for their own rights to an opinion, but that does not make it right.
Protecting womens right to fair competition in sports is not bigotry in any shape or form.
yeah, but I hope you understand I was mostly reacting to the last bit of your message. it isn’t uncommon for someone to be bigoted towards the gay or trans community irrespective of whether they have lots of lgbtq pals or attend the pride parade.
OK, I guess that can happen. I dont know whether it does or not since I have never experienced it myself. The only thing I have experienced is people that are totally against pride, and also are mocking womens sports. What I would describe as alpa-males that believe women belongs in the kitchen and that gay or trans people have no place in society. Thats the only anti-trans and anti-women individuals I have encountered and battled against since I started watching womens sports in particular the last decade. In my lifetime I have not really had any reason to get involved in any discussion about this, I just lived my life they way I want it and let trans or gay individuals live theirs without giving it any thought whatsoever, which feels like the natural way to go about things.
It’s shocking that this statement can lead people to start moaning and whining about bigotry and transphobia. In any case, I agree - when it comes to sport, the bodies need to find a solution that keeps biological women competing with biological women and make the men’s either an open category or have a third open category.
Look, you sound like someone who genuinely supports women's sport, but you also need to understand this is a complex issue that affects a minority who, for the most part, still today, get incredible amounts of abuse on a daily basis and are probably the most openly mocked if not downright insulted minority in real life. And that's why I think the language you used in the last sentence of that post, or your giddiness when you posted the UCI news are not the best choices and make you sound as confrontational as the people you're complaining about. I for one don't agree 100% with or bow down to the trans community's every wish and have never been billed as transphobic. My point is, you may genuinely feel strongly about women's sport and that's great, but I believe that can be shown without resorting to that kind of language, which I don't think is outrageous to associate with the transphobic online hordes.
i wasn't talking about you, i was talking about why wedge issues like this are used by others - because the tactic is to ultimately turn people from being allies to being against trans rights generally. you're an example of that specific tactic being used successfully.
The key thing here is that I am discussing facts, while they are labeling me a transphobe with no merit. If they would have stuck to facts and not personally insulted me based on nothing I would probably not have posted the UCI news at all. But I still think posting the UCI stating that a logical decision has been made is far less offensive (if offensive at all) than pulling the transphobe card against anyone mentioning for example Peterson or Walsh or whatever it is.They cant just jump on anyone posting "What is a women" for example, argue the specific topic at hand, dont attack individuals who are simply engaging in discussion.
The onus is not me to use perfect language and tip-toe around these issues because the other party might confuse me with some hardcore anti-trans gang members on twitter. They should if sensible hold their horses until they know who they are talking to. Guilt by "vague associations" is not the way to go if you are open to debate and preach "inclusiveness".
You keep doing this cowardly thing.
You refer to medical professionals as Frankensteins and trans people as their monsters, you lie about kids getting their genitals cut before they're old enough to know that Santa doesn't exist, and you're posting the tweets of fascists, then say you're just posting facts.
This thread is full of people who are skeptical or downright against trans women competing with cis women. The other thread is full of people who have questions about different forms of gender affirming care. They're not getting the reaction you're getting, because they're not posting extremist shit like you are. Yet you hide behind "anyone not 100 % on board". It's not anyone, it's you. Well, you and two people who got banned in the Andrew Tate thread.
This is what you think of trans people.
And this is what they think of trans people:
The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh: “Trans people don’t exist”
“The answer is no. No one is beyond it because we’re human beings and there are two options, male and female, and nobody exists beyond that.”
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/11/17/the-daily-wires-matt-walsh-trans-people-dont-exist/
Trans activism is sexist and delusional
By denying science, the medical profession is committing some of the worst moral crimes in modern times. It must end
by JORDAN PETERSON
Ron DeSantis Just Took Two Big Steps to Make Trans Lives Illegal
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi.../ron-desantis-trans-lives-illegal-1234736648/
You think of them as freak monsters, and say your views on them are similar to people who want them to no longer exist. Of course, the real crime here is that you were LABELED!!!????? MY GOD.
To both:
I DO NOT think of them as freaks or monsters at all. Thats just absurd to claim. Just because in your head you might wish that I did, does not make it factual.
Now, first of all get this thing out for your heard. I have repeatedly said that the medical professionals and the people behind it are the MONSTER! The people being operated are the victims. I have never said that any one operated on is a monster in any way or form. You have taken that out of context since I made the initial post to suit your agenda.
If you could read whats actually being written instead of pulling emotive reactions you might actually realize you are working yourself up over nothing.
What of the vast vast majority of trans people who approve of what the monster doctors do, and encourage other trans people to get the same things done... Monster's helpers?
And since medical transition is a heinous crime, should it be banned?
I have never said anything about if it should be banned or not, just that I never would agree on it being performed on people under 18. I have also never claimed that its being performed easily or very often on under 18 individuals which I often see being brought up.
Other than I have said its up to grown adults to make decisions on their bodies. The only reason I am getting attacked by you guys is that I had Walsh or DeSantis in my post. Who I barely knew who they were, other than that on this particular I happened to agree with them. And thereby you assumed I was some kind of evil anti-trans person that worships Walsh and Peterson in a daily basis when I spent less than 5 hours of my entire life time listening or reading them.
I know this is the story you decided on after the fact, but it's not true. Here is what you said, though it should be unnecessary because it was just quoted to you:
"being mutilated and experimented on like frankensteins monster."
There is no ambiguity here. The doctor is Frankenstein, the trans person is Frankenstein's monster. I know that you don't mean monster as in evil, you think the medical professionals are the evil ones, you mean monster as in freak. Exactly as in the book. No one is confused about what you said, no one is taking you out of context. The monster is also the victim in the book.
The fact that you're saying, "oh no, you misunderstood, I look at trans people as freaks who are being mutilated and experimented on against their better judgement, I feel sorry for them", and think that is somehow supposed to be better is crazy.
5 hours is quite a long time for internet people you barely know!
I'm, not accusing you of worshipping them, I'm saying you agree with them on trans issues. And I'm doing that by quoting you:
...
This is a study on what happens to the young victims of those doctors:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35212746/
Yes, sure, suicide rates might have fallen substantially, but in the end it's more important to stop the doctors from creating more freaks!
I very much stand for that the people being operated on with experimental surgery that will change healthy functioning organs into something we have no knowledge about how it will turn out long term - while also being relied upon regular medical care for their rest of their live is being exposed to a monster = the monster is the industry, surgeron, big pharma. Thats all there is to it.
As far as the trans-people being operated on I just feel sorry for them in every sense that they are suffering that badly, to have it come down to such radical solutions. But I definitely do not view them as freaks at all, why would I do that?
I never said I view trans people as freaks, I dont even know why anyone would do that, its just far from the reality I´ve grown up with. There are no Walsh or Petersons here, I can assure you that.
Why are you even still insisting on using the word freaks? NotThatSoph is the only I have seen in these thread referring to any trans-individual as freaks. I dont why that is and I can not control it.
Frankenstein's monster is the freak, that's what the book is about. You call trans people Frankenstein's monster, and you say that they're mutilated. That's what it means to be a freak.
I have not read Frankensteins book, I just used the term to express it as experimental surgery, thats it. Was it a good way in hindsight to express myself? I would think not, but its still does not make me think any ill of the trans-people undergoing the surgery.
I honestly did not know what the actual term of being a freak is as I never in my lifetime labeled anyone as a freak myself.
I did google it now: "a person, animal, or plant with an unusual physical abnormality." "A freak is a person who is physically deformed or transformed due to an extraordinary medical condition or body modification"
With that in mind I guess more people than I ever imagined are "freaks" by definition.
I still do not see why you are so mad about the freak label, as anyone who would have had major surgery or altered there appearance by surgery then would be "a freak by definition".
There is a guy on instagram turning himself into an alien, and by definition he would be "a freak", but I dont have anything personal against him or the the individuals that have had gender surgery.
You're so throughly dishonest it's actually insane.
No, whats actually insane is how you have spent weeks trying to cement a fact that I am anti-trans when its simply not true in any sense or form whatsoever. Its truly bizarre, there is just nothing I can do about it. There is nothing left to add. My conscience is clear, you should spend your time combating people who are actually anti-trans instead of chasing ghosts!
One thing you could do about it is to not lie about things, like kids getting their genitals cut before they're old enough to figure out Santa doesn't exist.
Point taken.
If you go back to my post I was actually sarcastic in my response to the user dumbo who made sarcastic response to my previous post. But indeed, I will take responsibility for that post while being sarcastic was provocative in a way that was not needed. I can see that now and I wish I had not written it that way, as it would have saved us a few weeks arguing.
I dont know if any kids are getting the gender surgery or how many teenagers under 18 have it done, so that part of my post was inappropriate and might be incorrect when it comes to kids. I am sorry for that.
I have also seen how Walsh certainly is trolling at points, so I can see why there is tension there.
That will conclude my part, and I should add that I will learn a lesson from this and not drop sarcastic & exaggerated posts on a topic like this. Not only was it potentially offensive to others. But it also might get myself into serious trouble when people think I harbor opinions I do not have whatsoever. I dont expect you to believe me at this point so I rest my case.
Final note: I actually watched a 2 part documentary here in sweden called "Att bli Lee" (To become Lee) Its about a man working in the construction industry all his life and being a macho man and it shows his journey transitioning from Björn to Lee. Its actually a pretty brilliant film and made me tear up and I never cry. It was widely well received in sweden and I am sure it made alot of good in explaining to regular people what a journey like that can be like. It was very raw and showed all his interactions with coming out to his family and friends etc. Not sure if its available on any international platforms.
https://www.tv4play.se/program/d3174271c12d8fdb6dbd/att-bli-lee
Last edited: