Has there been a single instance - one, just once - where a trans-man athlete has dominated the man's sport upon entry, winning championships and breaking records? That seems to have every time biological men compete in women's sport. Every. Time.
-
Features
Should Trans-Women Be Allowed In Women's Sports? NO!
- Thread starter Half-Life
- Start date
Has there been a single instance - one, just once - where a trans-man athlete has dominated the man's sport upon entry, winning championships and breaking records? That seems to have every time biological men compete in women's sport. Every. Time.
It doesn't happen every time. If a transgender woman does win, it gets heavily publicized. If she finishes middle of the pack, crickets chirping.
Setting that aside, you've basically ignored everything I've written before. The whole point I was making is you won't resolve this issue by simply mandating transgender athletes compete as their assigned gender. The variance in biological advantage amongst both transgender and cisgender athletes will ensure people are misplaced when attempting to group by biological competitive edge.
One of the names which gets thrown around the most is Rachel McKinnon, competing in 200m track cycling. In 2018, she broke the world record for her age bracket, only to have it broken again by a cisgender woman shortly after. She did win in 200m, but lost in 500m.
No. No human being, ever, has been assigned a gender. Ever, in the history of the universe.
A baby's sex is determined--almost always correctly--by a pre-natal scan or shortly after birth. Nobody ever assigned a gender to a child.
Why are women's and men's sports separated by sex in the first place?
"thrown around". Rachel McKinnon is a biological man who went through a male puberty. I'm not surprised biological males outcompete cis women in sports (since men are better at them), and it's cis women who will suffer.
Competing in a sport as your gender identity is not a human right.
I am not arguing for doing so. I am saying if you want to resolve the problem. Targeting transgender athletes doesn't do that.
It isn't intrinsically the case with transgender athletes that they do or do not have this advantage. It is circumstantial as it is with cisgender athletes.
Mosier made Team USA and placed as high as 2nd competing at that level. Manuel won his match. I doubt their assigned gender at birth gave an advantage, but again, this isn't going to be categorically true no matter what group you are describing. The advantages which exist or do not exist will be circumstantial.
The thing is, if athletes are required to compete as their gender assigned at birth, then Mosier and Manuel would have to compete in women's divisions. That's what happened to Mack Beggs shown in the picture Trausti posted with a nonsensical 'if this were your daughter..." tagline.
What are you talking about? People who engage in fighting sports place themselves in harm's way within certain parameters. This idea that there is something specifically repugnant about a cisgender woman being punched by a transgender woman in a sport where people punch each other is bizarre. Anyone engaging in the sport willingly puts themselves at risk of physical trauma or in rare cases death. Having divisions based on weight and gender helps minimize the risk of worst possible outcomes; however, simply sorting by gender assigned at birth isn't sufficient.
There are no universals we can apply to physical development based on gender assigned at birth. There are outliers in every category. Not every transgender woman has advantages over cisgender women. Some cisgender women have dramatic advantages over other cisgender women. Transgender men who undergo hrt will likely (though not categorically) have advantages over cisgender women when both have trained equally.
Nearly every child has been. You're just being pissy about contemporary terminology.
Hormonal variations give some an advantage over others. As a generalization, the highest peak performers will be men due to this advantage. Specific to all individuals competing, simply using crude 'male' 'female' designations based on gender assigned at birth will result in outliers who fuck up that train of thought.
McKinnon is a transgender woman. She doesn't categorically outcompete cisgender women. It was in the post. Her record was beat. She has been beaten.
Nobody in the history of the universe has been assigned a gender at birth. A doctor named their sex by examining the baby's sexual characteristics.
Chicken sexers do this at the rate of about one per second, with male chicks being thrown into a mincer.
Non. It's only bizarre if you already accept that trans women are the same as cis women for every possible circumstance.
Gender is not assigned at birth and it never has been. Stop lying.
Irrelevant. Not every cis man can beat every cis woman in any particular strength feat. The separation of the sexes in sport has never relied on such an idea.
Trans men don't compete with cis women. Though if they did, that too would also be unfair. Testosterone is literally a performance enhancing drug.
Lying? Weak. Gender is assigned at birth. That is the terminology of present day. A declaration of maleness or femaleness at birth based on external genitalia is simply a crude classification system which is socially acceptable, and accurate within a margin of error which doesn't seem to bother most. But it is an assignation and not a matter of strict biology neither gender identity.
Not what I was talking about.
I literally gave you an example. And if you force transgender women to compete with cisgender men, one of two things has to be reasonably concluded.
i) If you basis for classification is GENDER ASSIGNED AT BIRTH, transgender men have to compete with cisgender women.
ii) If the basis is biological advantage, then no generic rule can apply to transgender people or even cisgender people. Biological advantage will be too variable. Again, look at examples such as Caster Semenya.
No. Gender has never been assigned at birth. Sex is classified at birth by a physician. No physician, no anybody, ever, assigned a gender at birth, because gender is a self identity. Somebody inspected your external genitals and made a classification about your sex.
Gender has never been assigned at birth, for anyone, ever, in the history of the universe. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Gender, as applied to humans, did not even fucking exist as a language concept before the 1960s. Just stop. A physician made an almost certainly correct classification about your sex at birth. Nobody fuck nothing fuck nowhere fuck never assigned a gender.
I'm sorry to swear so much but this deceptive language has to fucking stop.
Nobody forces fuck nobody to compete with fuck nobody else in sport. Nobody has a gun to their head to lift weights or play volleyball. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Competing in sports as your gender identity is not a human right.
Yes, and if those transgender men are taking performance-enhancing drugs (like testosterone) they'd be excluded for taking performance-enhancing drugs.
If you think it's too hard to eliminate biological advantage, then remove sex and gender classes. Just because sex is an "imperfect" way to do it doesn't mean doing it by sex does nothing at all.
Who said anything about that? And why would that not apply to all people equally?
Where did I say it was? I am aware the argument is out there in the world, but I never made it.
Therapeutic and performance-enhancing use are two different things. That is why therapeutic use exemptions exist, though naturally not everything will be exempted.
I never said it was too hard. I said if you want to address biological advantage for the sake of 'fairness' then do that. Using sex won't be adequate with or without transgender athletes competing. It hasn't been. While it may be impossible to do it perfectly--it's unlikely a perfect state exists--certainly it could be improved upon to reduce what ends up being arbitrariness in practice.
Are you always this totally full of shit? If you want to throw a tantrum like a little baby, just do it. Honestly, I've tolerated your petulant behaviour up until now. I'm not going to moderate my language based on it, but obviously I don't really give a shit if you want to cry.
You said "force transgender women to compete with cisgender men".
Nobody is forced to play sport. Your scenario makes no sense.
Okay, if you don't believe that (good), then I'll go to the next step. Sports should be separated by sex and not self-identified gender. To split sports by self-identified gender is as ludicrous as to split it by having an odd or even number of letters in your name.
Testosterone is a performance enhancing drug. That's why elite level competitions control people taking it.
What does this mean? Transgender athletes can compete in their biological sex.
Petulant? Honey, you are peddling literal nonsense-you expect people to believe that physicians assign gender identity at birth, which is eye-bleeding, brain-busting nonsense. How can we have any kind of honest conversation if you believe this? How can you expect anyone else to believe it?
Nobody assigned a gender to me at birth, or to you, or to anyone. A physician looked at my genitals and correctly classified me as a boy. As it turned out, I developed into an effeminate pre-gay child, and then an effeminate adult male.
You were not assigned a gender at birth. Even by your own understanding of what gender is, you ought know this. Since gender is a self-identity nobody can have assigned it to you.
I didn't say anyone was forced to play a sport. I was talking about the category in which they would be mandated if competing.
It's also a therapeutic drug. What part of therapeutic use exemption was so difficult to understand?
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/defa...ysician_guidelines_transgender_version1.1.pdf
It means what I have been saying the whole time. Transgender athletes to not categorically have advantages or disadvantages. As one (but not the only) potential scenario, if a youth began medical transition MtF at the onset of puberty, she would not have the advantage of having gone through puberty with typical male hormonal levels. She would not have the advantage of increased testosterone levels if she had undergone certain surgeries, or if she had remained on hrt consistently since starting.
Or someone assigned female at birth may have XY chromosomes. They may or may not have an advantage where hormones are concerned.
Or someone assigned male at birth may have XX chromosomes. They may even identify as a transgender woman. Despite being an XX woman, they may have advantages of increased testosterone levels.
There are plenty of exceptional cases, a number of which have already come up at high level competition including the Olympics.
Yes. You've simply repeated yourself over and over while throwing a hissy fit and crying 'stop! stop! stop!'
You calling something nonsense does not make it so. I am not going into topic of why contemporary language uses 'assigned at birth' because I don't want to further derail things, especially when you seem to have difficulty addressing what I have actually written as it is.
I don't expect you to do anything, but I will use appropriate terminology as I see fit.
You could invest in learning why I use that terminology instead of just pitching a fit. Or you could look at what I am actually arguing instead of derailing yourself over a point of semantics.
You don't even know why it is used let alone why anyone should believe it.
Jesus Christ. Start a separate thread.
Last edited:
Nobody has answered the important question:
If Arnold Schwarzenegger identified as a woman TODAY, but didn't change his style of dress to fit the stereotype, how can anyone seriously say, "Yes, she's a woman now! Exactly the same as a woman born with a vagina and XX chromosomes!"
Makes no sense to me how people can believe this and call it progress.
And then there's trans people who contradict themselves by saying stuff like:
"Men and women do have biological differences! Look at the penis and vagina, the chromosomes, the boobs, the ability to get pregnant!"
and then say, "Men and women are the same! A man can be a woman and a woman can be a man!"
Which is it? Both statements can't be true.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger identified as a woman TODAY, but didn't change his style of dress to fit the stereotype, how can anyone seriously say, "Yes, she's a woman now! Exactly the same as a woman born with a vagina and XX chromosomes!"
Makes no sense to me how people can believe this and call it progress.
And then there's trans people who contradict themselves by saying stuff like:
"Men and women do have biological differences! Look at the penis and vagina, the chromosomes, the boobs, the ability to get pregnant!"
and then say, "Men and women are the same! A man can be a woman and a woman can be a man!"
Which is it? Both statements can't be true.
krypton, do you think Rachel McKinnon should be allowed to compete against biological women in cycling?
He wouldn't qualify for competition without undergoing a minimum of one year on anti-androgens and lowering his testosterone below a certain limit. While it is debatable whether this sufficiently reduces biological advantages he may have, your scenario isn't a realistic scenario, and I am not sure who or how many people actually advocate for this in sports outside of possibly children's and rec leagues. I think even when we are talking about the high school level opinions start to split considerably.
I am not aware of anyone anywhere saying he would be exactly the same, save for the validity of his gender identity were he actually a transgender woman. If someone believed Arnold was not only female in gender identity, but also physiologically female in all regards, then by definition they would believe he is a cisgender woman, not transgender.
There are always a handful of people who believe nearly everything one can imagine. This doesn't mean it is a significant belief in society. But if you are certain it is, find the people who advocate that Arnold should be able to compete without lowering testosterone and ask them, or at least title this thread to be more inline with what you are actually asking.
Ignore the competition aspect of Arnold for a minute.
I'm simply asking, "If he said he's a woman TODAY, how can anybody take him seriously and believe him?" You would have radical leftists and trans people sticking up for him, but everyone else would see it as a sham.
Do you personally believe Arnold is a woman (no questions asked) simply because he says he is a woman?
I don't have sufficient information to evaluate that. Right now, in her age division and chosen categories, she is successful, but not unassailable. I can't find a full set of race results and fastest times to determine if McKinnon actually 'dominates'*. I can't determine how her training compares to the training of other competitors in her division. I can't asses the relevance of other physiological characteristics beyond hormone levels.
I can find tweets and headlines of specific results, but this isn't enough to paint a picture. For instance, one person cited McKinnon's race time being 0.4 seconds above the second place finisher as an unrealistic gap, but the gap between second and third was also around 0.4 and the gap between 3rd and 4th was about 0.5. In 2019, Dawn Orwick was faster than McKinnon in semi-finals, but in the finals McKinnon was 0.1 seconds faster than Orwick's semi-finals time (I don't see her finals time). This was slower than the personal best of either rider, I believe. McKinnon also lost to Orwick in another event during the same Championships.
What are we supposed to do with this as casual onlookers? McKinnon is a transgender woman. She wins against cisgender women in her age group. She loses against them too. She may or may not have an unfair advantage. It's not clear that she is in a league of her own against the other female competitors or that she is singularly spectacular with or without any hypothetical sex-based advantage.
*quotes based on articles/ tweets/ headlines I've read and not necessarily anything anyone has said in this thread.
Last edited:
In the adult sports, I see they do have "testosterone restrictions," but isn't this just reinforcing stereotypes? Leftists claim that "if a man says he's a woman, then she's a woman!" Arguing that the trans woman should have testosterone tests reinforces the stereotype that women are supposed to have low testosterone, right? So, they are reinforcing gender norms, not progressing past them.
This is how I don't understand what makes a trans person identify as a man or a woman if it's all made up and based on stereotypes? For example, there's men who dress up as drag queens and they still claim they are men. Yet, someone else can do this same thing and call themselves a trans woman. It seems sloppy and weird.
Can you explain?????
Yes? I mean, maybe if you strip the stupid qualifiers.
I don't believe or disbelieve 'simply because he says'. I tend towards agnosticism coupled with respect. If you want hard, objective reality, it's that I can't know if he is telling the truth 'no questions asked' or 'simply because he says' The reality is, I don't have much need to know if he is telling the truth or lying.
When someone tells me they are transgender, depressed, Catholic, Liberal, feminist, allergic to peanuts, I have no means of affirming or denying the statement in most cases. I take them at their word knowing these are all plausible things and that it is important to have people listen and have personal experiences, elements of our identity, or invisible characteristics about ourselves respected when we reveal them.
The restriction isn't based on defining who is or isn't a woman. It's based on currently available objective evidence on sex-hormones and performance. Requiring androgen blockers may be discriminatory, and it may also be sufficiently warranted.
It's not all made up and based on stereotypes. Biology is relevant. Social dynamics are relevant. Culture is relevant. Some of these things are rather malleable and some are not.
Some people wear hats for sun protection, some wear them to keep warm, and some wear them purely for fashion. Can you explain?
Rachel McKinnon went through a male puberty. Rachel is a biological male. Rachel should not be competing with cis women for the same reason any other biological males should not be competing with them.