Probably fair to say she wasn’t undersized her “whole life”.
Awful story though. That is one seriously damaged individual.
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Probably fair to say she wasn’t undersized her “whole life”.
Awful story though. That is one seriously damaged individual.
This bloke needs some mental help, I mean she's now basically doing the same now by beating girls in mma fights. I watched the fight and the other girl was the better fighter with more skill but was ultimately overpowered by brute strength.
That's messed up but probably all too common for a lot of people in that situation.
Yes. There should be a separate category for them.
If it's always the case that she has to find a willing opponent to fight then fine. If a biological woman wants to go up against a transgender athlete in MMA then let them.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-participation-unveiled-by-uk-sports-councils
New guidelines issued.
New guidelines issued.
No shit Sherlock...
But that argument falls down of the trans women holds a belt and you want to compete for the best honour in your sport fairly.
What is your problem?
No problem, my comment was targeting at the obvious findings of the report rather than you. Apologies if it didn't come across that way.
No, I get that, sorry, I was asking what your problem is with the guidelines.
I feel they've just passed the buck in a way and then I'm wondering what their criticism of the verious sports might be if they don't agree with their efforts to make it inclusive.
No, I get that, sorry, I was asking what your problem is with the guidelines.
I feel they've just passed the buck in a way and then I'm wondering what their criticism of the verious sports might be if they don't agree with their efforts to make it inclusive.
I just think it is obvious that trans women have an advantage in women's sport. Every report I've seen which tries to portray the contrary has massive holes in it or little evidence.
I completely support individuals living their life as they see fit. But it shouldn't infringe the rights and opportunities of others, which is exactly what trans women in women's sports does.
My sister why a national athlete, I saw how hard he worked from the age of 8 up until she knocked it on the head in her early 20's. It isn't right that a biological man can compete in the same competition, they have a fundamental advantage and it will destroy women's sport.
I find the whole trans arguement at the moment a little self destructive, whereby a large part of that community are happy to blue the sacred space of what was becoming womenhood aslong as it furthers their own situation.
Seeing the leader of the Labour party having to state the craziness of "that women had a cervix" is nuts.
Apologies for going off on somewhat of a sidetrack, but you asked.
Just on the reasons why that's a more complex issue than it sounds. Here's a commentary on what can happen to a trans-man with a cervix.
Words can matter, especially when it comes to treating people as individuals in a time when computers can treat us as a collection of tick boxes.
Just as there are times when neither gender nor sex should matter (like posting on a forum) there are times when we have to differentiate between birth sex and gender (like in healthcare). If the database can't handle a man with a cervix, or a pregnant man, or a woman who might need a PSA test, then the database is faulty. Default entries on databases are fine, failing to handle people who don't fit nicely into the tick boxes is not.
I also believe the same with sport. Some sports can create structures that work for inclusion - particularly below the elite level. Non contact versions in some sports, simple (and non-intrusive) acceptance of people who want to compete according to their gender in other sports. That said, even below the elite level I don't think women's sport can handle things like gender fluidity - too open to abuse particularly from those who want to ridicule women's sport or use it as a chance to annoy or control.
At the elite level? I don't think women's sport can handle transgender athletes. Some individual sports like athletics could allow participation, with duplicate medal awards perhaps to permit participation without undermining competition - though admittedly that ends up as quite intrusive for the athletes involved. Others, like top level tennis and football, I don't see a solution other than a ban that uses birth sex or even chromosome sex as decisive.
I know we are going somewhat off-topic(so forgive me), but wouldn't it medically be much simpler to refer to transpatients as transwomen or transmen in their medical journals? At the end of the day both the patient and the doctor is aware of this fact and it's relevant for their treatment. At the end of the day I think that's easier than trying to get the overwhelming majority of people to change their definition of what a man is and what a women is.
I respect your reply but do disagree. From a medical standpoint the hospital record should only really 'need' to be relevent to your birth sex. That way a trans-man still gets a notification about a cervical screening for instance. I say this because ultimately that individual may not feel like a women, but illness doesn't consider feelings and the work in identifying and getting the message to a patient should be as streamlined as possible. If goes back to my fundamental point, live how you want to live, but don't expect the world to bend to facilitate it.
In sport I would be more than happy to see trans men and women have their own categories, just like men and women do. Surely that is the only fair way which both lets them compete equally whilst not infringing the rights of cisgender men and women.
It is a very difficult subject, as I feel it's oh easy to be labelled anti-trans for having any opinion that doesn't submit to their idealism.
Which means that in your expert medical opinion it doesn't matter whether or not someone is trans, yeah?
For the majority of medical cases it doesn't matter anymore than any other body modification might matter.
The NHS are stretched enough without having the additional worry and concern of ensuring every message and letter they send out contains the correct pronouns.
Like I said originally, I am 100% behind a person living their life the way they see fit. But that way of life should not infringe the rights or space of others.
I also didn't claim to be an expert, and I certainly don't think you are either. Yet here we are once again, you have a difference of opinion with someone of the far liberal left and you must be a pompous villain. Could it not just be that I have a different opinion on the subject to you?
That's a weird opinion. For the majority of medical cases sex doesn't matter at all either, so why just not forget about females altogether? After all, that's how we've done it most of history.
Right, and "infringning" means taking their health seriously, because if you take their health seriously then ... you can't take cis people's health seriously?
The case being discussed was that of a cervix... I'm pretty sure sex and being a female is pretty crucial to that, don't you?
The infringing spaces comment was about the uproar caused because a comment was made that "only women had a cervix" and it was condemned as the wrong thing to say. Something I find silly as biology/sex is separate to gender identification, and biologically, yes it is women who have genders. I number of feminists feel (an I tend to agree with their point) that some of the demands of equality from the trans community infringe on their identity of women hood. Fundamentally going back to a trans women not being happy with the trans women label and demanding to be labelled a women.
I'm not looking to argue, I would hope people can accept others have differing opinions with neither party in the conversation wishing ill on either side of the debate. It just feels in this argument that if you don't agree totally with what the trans movement would like then you are anti-trans.
That makes even less sense. So what you're saying is that doctors should take into account that people are trans or cis, unless we're talking about cervixes, and in that case we should only care about assigned sex at birth? That sounds awfully convuluted just to satisfy your sensibilities.
No I'm saying doctors should particularly look if a person is trans or not, and just go on the sex of birth, as biologically that is their makeup. I feel like maybe you have read half my posts on this and felt there was something to pick at, or perhaps I documented my thoughts poorly.
No, I think I read it all. Now you're saying that doctors should particularly look at if they're trans or not, what you said was that birth sex should be the only relevant thing.
Personally I'd say that doctors should take into account all relevant information, no matter if people are trans or cis, I guess I'm weird like that.
Let's agree to disagree then shall we. Even though your point in bold I feel supports my argument, what you identify as doesn't matter when talking about a cervix, only your birth sex, so gender isn't relevent. Just an additional layer where there doesn't need to be one.
All the best.
Edit: in all fairness I made a typo (late and on my phone) on the message you replied to, it should have read..
"Doctors shouldn't particularly look..." - my bad on that one!
And according to your expert medical opinon hormones don't mean shit, nor does anything else related to whether people are trans or cis. You should let doctors know. The one I go to teaches medical students at Uni, do you want me to pass it on?
So we go straight back to being confrontational because you can't accept I have a differing opinion.
Why does my opinion bother you?
Freedom of speech gives me the right to express an opinion, I'm not forcing it on you, asking you to accept it or being insulting in my mention of it. Yet because it isn't the same opinion as yours it must be mocked?
My fundamental point was that, only women have a cervix. I stand by it, and as far as I am aware, hormones don't change that fact.
See, this is fecking fantastic.
I'm raising specifc issues I have with your statements. I'm saying we should leave this to the medical experts instead of your musings. What's you response? Freedom of speech? What the feck are you talking about? Am I trying to get you arrested? Have I said that it should be illegal for you to say ignorant shit?
I was actually thinking that you just hadn't really considered what you were saying, but this is proper pathetic. Freedom of speech, holy fecking shit.
I said that not because you are trying to get me arrested for god's sake, but because you seem so annoyed by a differing opinion. I don't get why it bothers you. I often as I learn more about a subject over the years change my opinion, others time I don't. If this happens to be an opinion I later change I'll be happy to state that. For now I see valid counter points for each side of the argument and don't claim it to be a black and white situation/solution.
I just think for me, with things considered. Their a certain aspects of the accomodation of self identification that just create more issues than they solve. With this being one of them. A solution to please a minority can't come at the detriment of another group as it often does with the tran Vs women debate.
Anyway, I am going to sleep now as it's almost 2am. In spite of our differing opinions, I do respect your view an you made some points worth thinking about.
Then don't talk about freedom of speech, come on. The Nuremberg trials would have sentenced you to death for what you just said, you just violated the Geneva convention. Or, no, of course neither of those things. It's not relevant, obviously, neither is freedom of speech. I'm sorry for mocking you. Or ... I'm not sure if I'm sorry, but I do acknowledge that I did mock you, but you have to realize how silly it is to talk about freedom of speech here. If you thing I'm being an asshole you're free to call me that, it would have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Well, that's not completely true, if freedom of speech is relevant it's because you're free to call me an asshole if you want, and you're free to not do that if you don't want to.
Just leave it to the professionals, they'll take care of it.
On the flip side, that applies to @NotThatSoph as well. They’re free to criticize your opinion.
Touché on removing my post, quite funny.
Although I also think @NotThatSoph would have found it quite funny me called him/her/they an asshole
Ps... Let this one go.
Touché on removing my post, quite funny.
Although I also think @NotThatSoph would have found it quite funny me called him/her/they an asshole
Ps... Let this one go.
It depends on what you mean by funny, I explicitly welcomed you calling me an asshole, so I wouldn't mind.
It was just meant to be a bit of a light-hearted joke...
Sure, no harm done, don't worry.
Disagreeing and mocking the speech of others is completely part of free speech. Sorry to be off-topic but It seems a lot of people don't understand the principles at all.
I do agree it's daft that we've gotten to a point where the leader of the labour party says it's "wrong and she shouldn't have said that" about only women have having cervixes.
Last edited:
“The story is well-known. Thomas is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, and a transgender athlete. She previously competed for three years as a member of the Quakers’ men’s team, earning All-Ivy League accolades. A year ago, the conference, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged, canceled all athletics. Meanwhile, Thomas had transitioned to female, and awaited the opportunity to represent Penn in women’s collegiate competition. That time has now arrived.
In recent weeks, Thomas has been firing off a multitude of top times – primarily in the distance-freestyle events. At last weekend’s Zippy Invitational, on the campus of Akron University, Thomas blasted automatic NCAA-qualifying efforts in the 200-yard freestyle (1:41.93) and 500 freestyle (4:34.06). Both times rank No. 1 in the nation, and her 200 free performance was quicker than last year’s gold-medal time at NCAAs.”
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.c...championships-would-establish-unfair-setting/
The 200m performance is less than 3 seconds off of Missy Franklin’s record time.
“It’s worth noting that Thomas, from her time on the men’s team, was a six-time finalist at the Ivy League Championships, including three runnerup performances at the 2019 meet. Her times were 4:18.72 in the 500 free, 8:55.75 in the 1000 free and 14:54.76 in the 1650 free. Following hormone therapy, her 2021 times are far slower but still fast enough to be championship quality.”
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.c...fastest-times-in-nation-controversy-brewing//
In recent weeks, Thomas has been firing off a multitude of top times – primarily in the distance-freestyle events. At last weekend’s Zippy Invitational, on the campus of Akron University, Thomas blasted automatic NCAA-qualifying efforts in the 200-yard freestyle (1:41.93) and 500 freestyle (4:34.06). Both times rank No. 1 in the nation, and her 200 free performance was quicker than last year’s gold-medal time at NCAAs.”
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.c...championships-would-establish-unfair-setting/
The 200m performance is less than 3 seconds off of Missy Franklin’s record time.
“It’s worth noting that Thomas, from her time on the men’s team, was a six-time finalist at the Ivy League Championships, including three runnerup performances at the 2019 meet. Her times were 4:18.72 in the 500 free, 8:55.75 in the 1000 free and 14:54.76 in the 1650 free. Following hormone therapy, her 2021 times are far slower but still fast enough to be championship quality.”
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.c...fastest-times-in-nation-controversy-brewing//
I dont get why lumping trans into a separate class or classification needs to be an issue.
Separation by gender, weight, height, age, has been around for a while and it's not meant as a discrimination. Just common sense.
It's abit weird that 1 kg heavier means another class but a clearly extreme advantage being let in.
It really is not for all parties involved granted, but until we developed something solid to fix this issue then they should all be joining their original gender, probably dropped down a tier or two to compensate. E.g. trans weightlifter still compete in their original gender class with a fix set of handicap. That way at least the effect isnt as widespread and damning for the rest of the women's class
Separation by gender, weight, height, age, has been around for a while and it's not meant as a discrimination. Just common sense.
It's abit weird that 1 kg heavier means another class but a clearly extreme advantage being let in.
It really is not for all parties involved granted, but until we developed something solid to fix this issue then they should all be joining their original gender, probably dropped down a tier or two to compensate. E.g. trans weightlifter still compete in their original gender class with a fix set of handicap. That way at least the effect isnt as widespread and damning for the rest of the women's class
Were they all joint third?
Looks like 2 thirds and a second, I don’t think the whole thing is fair, but that’s a pretty cold photo..