- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
you are stretching... long live...Oh FFS
You were born with a d1ck
Get over it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you are stretching... long live...Oh FFS
You were born with a d1ck
Get over it
I think the more research that is done, the better.
I think people questioning research by experts in their field is a bit anti-science though. Sure, scientists don't always get it right, but it is the job of other scientists to figure it out, science isn't really a buffet for people to pick and choose which ones are compatible with their own expectations or point of view.
Hannah isn't disputing the testosterone limits that the AFL has set.There are female athletes who are way over 5 nmol/L, in one study had 11 of 234 female athletes tested over 8 nmol/L.
"Bekker and Tannenbaum argued there were no clear lines in the sand about what a “male” or “female” level of testosterone was, pointing to one study in which 74 of 446 male athletes had testosterone levels below the “normal male” lower limit of 8.4 nmol/L while 32 of 234 female athletes had levels above the upper “normal female” limit of 2.7 nmol/L. Eleven female athletes had levels over 8 nmol/L.
“What we are seeing is the policing of women’s bodies, problematically framed as fairness or protecting other women,” said Bekker. “We don’t need to be protected from women just as men in sport aren’t protected from other men.”
Testosterone limits for female athletes not backed by science, say academics
Rules by IAAF would require some female track runners to lower their testosterone levels to competewww.theguardian.com
IAAF have had the 5 nmol/L limitation for female athletes for running distances of 400m+, it isn't just a transgender limitation but applies to all female athletes. If you are a female runner and you are naturally over 5 nmol/L they will force you to take drugs to lower your testosterone level of they will ban you from competing in 400m+ distances.
I can understand that for running, going from A to B is all that matters in that sport, nothing else matters. Many guys who blitz the running tests at the combine have turned out to be some of the worst footballers we have produced. For sports like weightlifting or running where physical attributes overwhelmingly determine how good you will be at the sport I think it is important to have a fair environment but sport has always been at the whim of genetic lottery. They are trying to control that in female sports, but not in male sports.
This issue was highlighted by the Caster Semenya case, a women who was identified as female at birth but is intersexed, she has XX chromosomes, identities as a cis woman. She had to take a sex test to make sure she was female. She refused to take drugs to alter herself and I can understand their frustration, there are no such requirements in male sport to level the playing field and limit men with abnormal testosterone levels from competing.
When it comes to AFL being stronger or faster doesn't necessarily mean you will be a good footballer, a lot of big strong men stink at AFL. My point is even if you are taller or faster or whatever, it in itself doesn't automatically make you better at AFL. Being tall and strong can be an advantage in some positions, it can also be a liability. AFL isn't an exhibition of the biggest and the largest and the strongest men we can produce, the game isn't dominated by these types of players, the average AFL footballer isn't anywhere near the top end of male capabilities. Why are we fixated with what the top end of female size and strength is capable of?
It is this lack of nuance which isn't a part of transgender conversation in AFL.
The strongest men, the fasted men... are not AFL footballers. We have much stronger men, much faster men, they are not the best AFL footballers. If strength and speed is such a clutch in AFL then why aren't the strongest, tallest, fastest dominating the men's competition?
Dangerfield is fast, but he has skills that are not easy to replicate. We have tried with numerous dropout NBA/NFL players who blitz Australian men in almost every category other than endurance and the best we can come up with is Cox.
There is more to the game than just being stronger or faster.
There are female athletes who are way over 5 nmol/L, in one study had 11 of 234 female athletes tested over 8 nmol/L.
"Bekker and Tannenbaum argued there were no clear lines in the sand about what a “male” or “female” level of testosterone was, pointing to one study in which 74 of 446 male athletes had testosterone levels below the “normal male” lower limit of 8.4 nmol/L while 32 of 234 female athletes had levels above the upper “normal female” limit of 2.7 nmol/L. Eleven female athletes had levels over 8 nmol/L.
“What we are seeing is the policing of women’s bodies, problematically framed as fairness or protecting other women,” said Bekker. “We don’t need to be protected from women just as men in sport aren’t protected from other men.”
Testosterone limits for female athletes not backed by science, say academics
Rules by IAAF would require some female track runners to lower their testosterone levels to competewww.theguardian.com
IAAF have had the 5 nmol/L limitation for female athletes for running distances of 400m+, it isn't just a transgender limitation but applies to all female athletes. If you are a female runner and you are naturally over 5 nmol/L they will force you to take drugs to lower your testosterone level of they will ban you from competing in 400m+ distances.
I can understand that for running, going from A to B is all that matters in that sport, nothing else matters. Many guys who blitz the running tests at the combine have turned out to be some of the worst footballers we have produced. For sports like weightlifting or running where physical attributes overwhelmingly determine how good you will be at the sport I think it is important to have a fair environment but sport has always been at the whim of genetic lottery. They are trying to control that in female sports, but not in male sports.
This issue was highlighted by the Caster Semenya case, a women who was identified as female at birth but is intersexed, she has XX chromosomes, identities as a cis woman. She had to take a sex test to make sure she was female. She refused to take drugs to alter herself and I can understand their frustration, there are no such requirements in male sport to level the playing field and limit men with abnormal testosterone levels from competing.
When it comes to AFL being stronger or faster doesn't necessarily mean you will be a good footballer, a lot of big strong men stink at AFL. My point is even if you are taller or faster or whatever, it in itself doesn't automatically make you better at AFL. Being tall and strong can be an advantage in some positions, it can also be a liability. AFL isn't an exhibition of the biggest and the largest and the strongest men we can produce, the game isn't dominated by these types of players, the average AFL footballer isn't anywhere near the top end of male capabilities. Why are we fixated with what the top end of female size and strength is capable of?
It is this lack of nuance which isn't a part of transgender conversation in AFL.
stats are there for a reason.. physicality is there as a moniker to say that things are as they are...Thank god Sherlock Holmes is on the case.
Your logic reminds me of Money doesn't buy you happiness. On the other hand, if you're going to be unhappy then you're better off being rich and unhappy than poor and unhappy ten times out of ten.
Male strength, speed and oxygenation ARE advantages, and it is fatuous to argue otherwise. In the case of contact sports against females, it is a potentially dangerous advantage as well as being grossly unjust to the female athlete.
There are female athletes who are way over 5 nmol/L, in one study had 11 of 234 female athletes tested over 8 nmol/L.
"Bekker and Tannenbaum argued there were no clear lines in the sand about what a “male” or “female” level of testosterone was, pointing to one study in which 74 of 446 male athletes had testosterone levels below the “normal male” lower limit of 8.4 nmol/L while 32 of 234 female athletes had levels above the upper “normal female” limit of 2.7 nmol/L. Eleven female athletes had levels over 8 nmol/L.
“What we are seeing is the policing of women’s bodies, problematically framed as fairness or protecting other women,” said Bekker. “We don’t need to be protected from women just as men in sport aren’t protected from other men.”
Testosterone limits for female athletes not backed by science, say academics
Rules by IAAF would require some female track runners to lower their testosterone levels to competewww.theguardian.com
IAAF have had the 5 nmol/L limitation for female athletes for running distances of 400m+, it isn't just a transgender limitation but applies to all female athletes. If you are a female runner and you are naturally over 5 nmol/L they will force you to take drugs to lower your testosterone level of they will ban you from competing in 400m+ distances.
I can understand that for running, going from A to B is all that matters in that sport, nothing else matters. Many guys who blitz the running tests at the combine have turned out to be some of the worst footballers we have produced. For sports like weightlifting or running where physical attributes overwhelmingly determine how good you will be at the sport I think it is important to have a fair environment but sport has always been at the whim of genetic lottery. They are trying to control that in female sports, but not in male sports.
This issue was highlighted by the Caster Semenya case, a women who was identified as female at birth but is intersexed, she has XX chromosomes, identities as a cis woman. She had to take a sex test to make sure she was female. She refused to take drugs to alter herself and I can understand their frustration, there are no such requirements in male sport to level the playing field and limit men with abnormal testosterone levels from competing.
When it comes to AFL being stronger or faster doesn't necessarily mean you will be a good footballer, a lot of big strong men stink at AFL. My point is even if you are taller or faster or whatever, it in itself doesn't automatically make you better at AFL. Being tall and strong can be an advantage in some positions, it can also be a liability. AFL isn't an exhibition of the biggest and the largest and the strongest men we can produce, the game isn't dominated by these types of players, the average AFL footballer isn't anywhere near the top end of male capabilities. Why are we fixated with what the top end of female size and strength is capable of?
It is this lack of nuance which isn't a part of transgender conversation in AFL.
Roger over and out...It is this lack of nuance which isn't a part of transgender conversation in AFL.
How so? The situation is a transgender footballer wants to play in the womens comp & will exclude a female from a game in the name of inclusion.
but the over and out is more of a speciality rather than a try heronimality... see that word and raise it to a hand ball to your favouriteRoger over and out...
Roger over and out...
This issue was highlighted by the Caster Semenya case, a women who was identified as female at birth but is intersexed, she has XX chromosomes, identities as a cis woman. She had to take a sex test to make sure she was female. She refused to take drugs to alter herself and I can understand their frustration, there are no such requirements in male sport to level the playing field and limit men with abnormal testosterone levels from competing.
I think people questioning research by experts in their field is a bit anti-science though. Sure, scientists don't always get it right, but it is the job of other scientists to figure it out, science isn't really a buffet for people to pick and choose which ones are compatible with their own expectations or point of view.
Please do better research, Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes, that makes "her" a biological male. "She" has 3 times the normal testosterone for women and looks masculine, because she is a biological male, with genital irregularities and hormonal conditions.
Semenya is also not really an analogous situation to that of a transgender athlete anyway, using the example of inter-sex athletes like Semenya (there's a few others as well from memory) as an argument for transgender athletes competing in the women's competition is a bit of a misnomer.
It's interesting that intersex individuals like Caster, with XY chromosomes, lacking an uterus or ovaries and with internal testes, are so rare but in 2016 all 3 of the medallists for the women's 800m were intersex.
Here's a quote: "Well sports scientist Ross Tucker – who actually testified on behalf of Semenya before the Court of Arbitration for Sport... – has described the presence of the Y-chromosome as the “THE single greatest genetic “advantage” a person can have.”
Please do better research, Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes, that makes "her" a biological male. "She" has 3 times the normal testosterone for women and looks masculine, because she is a biological male, with genital irregularities and hormonal conditions.
Are we going to start policing what is normal and what isn't when it comes to biological men and women as well?
Yeah, i meant XY chromosomes. She was assigned female at birth but has 5α-Reductase deficiency.
This is a bigger issue than just transgenderism because roughly 10% of women have hyperandrogenism, often caused by cysts on women ovaries which causes the abnormal production of testosterone and some women develop tumors in their pituitary glands which causes substantial growth and massively elevated testosterone levels.
Are we going to start policing what is normal and what isn't when it comes to biological men and women as well?
Why? because someone who can run 10 seconds in 100m is NOT going to play AFL.The strongest men, the fasted men... are not AFL footballers. We have much stronger men, much faster men, they are not the best AFL footballers. If strength and speed is such a clutch in AFL then why aren't the strongest, tallest, fastest dominating the men's competition?
Dangerfield is fast, but he has skills that are not easy to replicate. We have tried with numerous dropout NBA/NFL players who blitz Australian men in almost every category other than endurance and the best we can come up with is Cox.
There is more to the game than just being stronger or faster.
The 7ft argument you make is flawed. The tallest women in sport are not muscular. Those 7ft women are no more dangerous than the 6ft AFLW players. Even if you use Lauren Jackson and Liz Cambridge as examples, both are somewhat lean with typical bodyfat for a female. Take one look at Mouncey and you can see how solid she is and she want's to play AFL as she is now. Anyone could take one look at Mouncey and see she has the characteristics of a man. Is that not enough to indicate the unfairness of accepting trans athletes in sport.That is great, I didn't claim they were comparable. I was referring to trans woman who had undergone 2+ years of HRT, their muscle mass and strength declines during HRT. How much? I do not know.
If Joeline is happy as Joeline then I am happy for her. Do I think she should be allowed to play AFLW? It depends. There are 7 feet tall women, should they be allowed to play AFLW? Granted they are a lot rarer, but I think any determination should be scientific/evidence based and what would constitute an unfair advantage, because there were professional female basketballers taller and heavier than Aaron Sandilands. Would you ban women like that from playing AFLW on the basis of fairness or safety? Would you ban a 170cm trans woman who is of a small frame? She would be smaller than Erin Phillips.
I think people drag out the most extreme cases and refuse to consider anything else more to convince themselves than anyone else. I want to know if people have the same sensibilities if 7 feet tall non-trans women start appearing wanting to play AFL.
I think if it was a sport where strength alone was a critical attribute then it would be something that should have more accurate scientific data, like weightlifting. All that matters is strength and technique.
Being tall and being strong has advantages, but the Brownlow medalist is 177cm tall. How can he be the best player in the competition despite there being 200+cm players 20+kg heavier players, how is this possible in a world where height and muscle mass is everything? If all we look are just the numbers it gives us a distorted image of what AFL is about.
I don't think I missed the point, i just don't think there is any merit to that argument.
AFL guidelines suggest two or more years at 5 nmol/L or less for testosterone levels is enough to reduce the gap in terms of muscle mass and strength to comparable sized women. They still need to submit their height, weight, bench press, 20m sprint, vertical jump, 2km time trial and gps data to the AFL for them to consider.
This will be a problem when Mr Universe contestants are playing AFL. Yes, there are long term and permanent effects of growing up with elevated testosterone and weight lifters and body builders take that to an extreme. But, if gaining size was much of an enhancement to performance, why don't men bulk up to muscle mass they could comfortably get to without supplements? Why haven't the biggest players dominated this sport?
Perhaps there is more to AFL than being taller and stronger?
The 7ft argument you make is flawed. The tallest women in sport are not muscular. Those 7ft women are no more dangerous than the 6ft AFLW players. Even if you use Lauren Jackson and Liz Cambridge as examples, both are somewhat lean with typical bodyfat for a female. Take one look at Mouncey and you can see how solid she is and she want's to play AFL as she is now. Anyone could take one look at Mouncey and see she has the characteristics of a man. Is that not enough to indicate the unfairness of accepting trans athletes in sport.
When I made the point about trans athletes being over the threshold and being able to come down to the level required I used Joel Embiid as an example. If he came down to the required level he would have gained the unfair advantage of testosterone throughout his professional career. Joel could play 1 vs 5 and literally destroy the best all star wnba team.
When people use HRT treatment and transwomen as examples in muscle loss, that is also flawed. Unlike Hannah Mouncey, and Laurel Hubbard, those transwomen are taking a certain amount of HRT to appear very feminine. The two athletes are merely dropping to an appropriate t-level. Both have very masculine bodies and even comparing to some of the strongest strength athletes (Excluding sports that aren't drug tested, or poorly policed) they are much larger.
The point about the Brownlow medal was about what? It had no relevance at all
Why? because someone who can run 10 seconds in 100m is NOT going to play AFL.
Also, I wasn't really sure what point you were making in relation to my comments.
You're too late. The AFL already has a gender diversity policy. Transwomen can already play AFLW if they meet the criteria.She is already playing AFL and she hasn't killed anyone yet. She is just forced to play second division in the Canberra league, she wants to play first division where the women in first division are a higher quality competition. She is forced to play in a division where she has a much greater advantage, she doesn't think it is fair to the women of that division. She doesn't want to play in the AFLW.
My point, which you have ignored, is that there is a significant variability even within just males. You accept that at AFL level we have a sport where both Neale and Sandilands can compete in the same sport, at the same level. Do you think they are physically remotely comparable? Do you think Neale can compete against Sandilands for size and strength? No, genetically they are worlds apart. That didn't stop them from being able to compete at the same level. If Mouncey was 7-8 feet at a range which is extremely unlikely that women can grow to that level then it would be an issue. As you yourself have pointed out, women like Liz do naturally grow to a comparable size to someone even as tall as Mouncey. What testosterone levels are required to ensure a fair playing environment? I do not know. IAAF used 5 nmol/L of testosterone for 6 months, AFL's guidelines is for 5 over 2 years.
Are these institutions just plucking numbers out of their arse or is this based on any scientific evidence?
Are you now also now an expert on HRT therapy?
My point, which has obviously gone way over your head, is that we have huge male athletes and then we have guys like Neale, he was not only able to compete but the umpires said he was the best player in the league. My point is that even through there is a massive variance in size and strength between the smallest and the largest male players through genetic variability, they can both compete in the same league and the smaller guys can even excel to be the best players in the league. That massive difference doesn't exclude guys the size of Neale from playing, there is a lot more to AFL than just size and strength.
Is the difference between transgender women who are forced to abide by the AFL's testosterone control material enough to discriminate, that is my point and I do not have the answers. Someone who has concocted these guidelines for the various sports must have had some scientific evidence to base it off, surely they didn't just throw darts at a dartboard to conjure up a number.
AFL should make a call about being inclusive, or just exclude them and say fu** it, we are going to take the hit. AFL wants to parade around being a progressive organisation but it is giving lip service only when it comes to trans footballers. If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.
You're too late. The AFL already has a gender diversity policy. Transwomen can already play AFLW if they meet the criteria.
My point, which has obviously gone way over your head, is that we have huge male athletes and then we have guys like Neale, he was not only able to compete but the umpires said he was the best player in the league. My point is that even though there is a massive variance in size and strength between the smallest and the largest male players through genetic variability, they can both compete in the same league and the smaller guys can even excel to be the best players in the league. That massive difference doesn't exclude guys the size of Neale from playing, there is a lot more to AFL than just size and strength.