WATCH: Two Transgenders Blow Out Girls In State Meet

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I suppose this means practically every athlete with a vagina can look forward to never placing first, having been beaten out by another "girl" with a penis.

Woman want to be equal, now is their chance.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well heres the problem women have a disadvantage to men in sports. Easiest way to tell the olympics. On average there is a 11 percent diffrence between male and female atheletes. This can go as high as 30 percent in things like poll vault. Now why its not fair to women can be seen when we compare scores.

The women’s 100 record would have been too slow by a quarter-second to qualify for entry into the men’s field. In other words the gold medal winner would not even been able to compete with the men. In the 10,000 meters, the women’s world-record performance would be lapped by a man who made the minimum Olympic qualifying standard.

So theres the problem now where do transgenders fit in well without transitioning they would be with the gender asssigned at birth. But if transitioning they will somewhere in between male and female abilities. Transgenders will never compete with males professionally. Antrogen will hamper their performance. However they will be on thr upper end of female performance.

Several reasons being male to female muscles on males are different and no amount of hormone therapy will change that. They arent miracle drugs you take them and boom your a women.

So to be fair to women transgenders would need their own catagory. Bottom line is they would have genetic advantages over females and its not fair for women athletes to have to compete with someone who has genetic advantages.

a reply to: dragonridr

Men are better at some sports; women are better at others. There is also variation within the sexes.

What you're talking about as a difference between men and women is really a difference in physical attributes and ability. My suggestion at the outset was to create competitive divisions on that basis, rather than on birth sex.

I've pointed out repeatedly that many national and international sports authorities have worked out how trans folks can compete ... so I'm not really disposed to rehashing that again. It's a fact, integrating trans athletes into all levels of compeition is happening and has been happening for years. There's no reason to keep acting like (and I'm not saying you're the only one doing this) the concept just came up or that what is presented in the OP is a novel problem.

I disagree that transfolk have to have their own divisions and have given the reasons why.

Genetic advantages? The research says otherwise.

a reply to: Gryphon66

testosterone and genetics dictate that men have more physical prowess

a reply to: Gryphon66

No one said ots a new topic its just not a settled one like you believe. The International Olympic Committee says that naturally occurring testosterone gives transgender women an unfair advantage in competition against cisgender women, meaning women who were born female. The reason is biology an athelete male or female works out estrogen decreases. But in a transgendered female compete they compete with unlimited levels of natural testosterone making them dopers.

Thays why IOC guidelines in 2015 changed that require women who transition from men to block certain amounts of natural testosterone. But heres the catch that will constantly change the more they work out the more testosterone will be added to their system. Then there is all the advantages they were given being male just dont disappear. Males have longer limbs relative to their height, bigger hearts and lungs, less fat, denser bones, more oxygen-carrying red blood cells, heavier skeletons that support more muscle. No hormone therapy is going to change that.

Bottom line IOC restricts what sports transgenders can compete and its proba ly the right call. Downhill skiing doesnt matter but track it does.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, in most venues, it is exactly as settled as I believe, because I believe what the IOC/NCAA/etc. have published as standards (and linked that earlier).

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66

testosterone and genetics dictate that men have more physical prowess

Testosterone really, and yes, testosterone determines a lot of facters associated with physical prowess.

That's why female-to-male trans folks take testosterone, and why male to female folk take estrogen.

IOC uses testosterone levels as the measure to compete, therefore.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Actually that’s an interesting thought. Show jumping, racing, dressage etc are all events where everyone can reasonably compete equally (dudes just need a bit of extra padding). It is however difficult (for me) to think of jockeys etc as athletes - that’s kinda the horses job.

I was thinking around the Paralympics, yes it’s still split into genders but each event is further split into levels of ability. That may be a solution as might adding a Trans category. You’d think that men identifying as women and vice versa would be relatively evenly matched if on the respective hormone treatments.

Let’s be honest this has been going on since the 1930’s with Stella Walsh

www.sbnation.com...

Where it is difficult is where do you draw the line? Caster Semenya for example classed as female, however does not have a uterus and cannot bear children. She does however has internalised testicles which produce testosterone. She’s competed as female all her career and been routinely humiliated. She’s in the grey area.

www.theguardian.com...

Where I find it more difficult is when someone has identified as male for most of their life and has a functioning set of c&b’s suddenly switching to identify as female. If they pee standing up they should compete against men.

a reply to: Gryphon66

IOC uses testosterone levels as the measure to compete, therefore.

thats really not hard to get around.......

As a person that was involved in body building for many years, i can tell you that most competitors use test enhancements and other compounds.....

The larger women ALL use it, they have to to get the size that they put on....and ALL are tested before hand......

It would not be hard at all for these trans genders to dope for 6 months before their competitions, and then trickle off to where their levels are acceptable and maintain the edge with size and power.

Just saying

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The IOC was smart they say they must maintain these levels for 1 year before thry compete. Turns out thats harder then alot of transgenders thought when doing things lole track and field. Because 1 violation starts the one year clock over again. Thats why summer Olympics have no transgenders and winter only a couple get theough. Because they compete in downhills.

a reply to: Gryphon66

the immediate affects of testosterone wear off but the musculature and body that you build using it don't

men and women aren't the same a transgender former man has the musculature and build or women this is so ridiculous to even be arguing about anyone arguing this is doing it from a strictly emotional point of view

originally posted by: TheGOAT

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I suppose this means practically every athlete with a vagina can look forward to never placing first, having been beaten out by another "girl" with a penis.

Woman want to be equal, now is their chance.

That's the point though. Nothing is equal in sport. There's only one winner. Always. If it was equal why bother to have competition in the first place?

well no kidding sherlock. because they are not women and therefore have more muscle mass. who would have thunk it.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Perhaps the IOC has considered its testing procedures more thoroughly? I suppose any rule could be gotten around ...

However, you seem to be referring to someone using testosterone ... as in a female-to-male trans person?

The concern here seems to be directed, aside from the statements that are merely dismissive of trans athletes entirely, at male to female competitors at the point where the estrogen treatments haven't sufficiently changed their muscle mass, burst strength, bone density, etc. to a level comparable to the average female competitor.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66

the immediate affects of testosterone wear off but the musculature and body that you build using it don't

men and women aren't the same a transgender former man has the musculature and build or women this is so ridiculous to even be arguing about anyone arguing this is doing it from a strictly emotional point of view

Musculature and body don't change after estrogen treatments?

The evidence says otherwise.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Perhaps the IOC has considered its testing procedures more thoroughly? I suppose any rule could be gotten around ...

However, you seem to be referring to someone using testosterone ... as in a female-to-male trans person?

The concern here seems to be directed, aside from the statements that are merely dismissive of trans athletes entirely, at male to female competitors at the point where the estrogen treatments haven't sufficiently changed their muscle mass, burst strength, bone density, etc. to a level comparable to the average female competitor.

Perhaps but compare those athletes physiques to the females........we can say all that all we want, but look at their builds compared to their peer athletes that arent transgender....

a reply to: Ameilia

having been beaten out by another "girl" with a penis.

No such mammal as a Girl with a penis. Don't get sucked into the Devils terminology.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm very saddened that this discussion turned out merely to be another "here's why I don't accept transgenders or differing gender identities" bash sesh.

Easily the most unfair post you have made in this thread, my friend. There are a few folks who may state such, but they drive by and never return...ie, not part of the discussion, just noise.

The discussion I am reading has been fairly rational. At least, from the 7 or 8 that are actually part of the discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You ask why. Just go back to the first page and start reading all of this over again, that is why.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Which ones?