Play Nice First transgender player in the AFLW

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
This seems a strawman to me...Going by the criteria of 'homelessness', or perhaps a more significant 'suicide' statistic in the below link, transgenderism ought to fit the same criteria of being harmful?

Studies have shown that the only thing harmful about it is social stigma (and people supressing their gender identity due to fear of that stigma).

Even today, people still supress their gender identity out of fear of the stigma they will face. Cate McGregor suppressed her gender identity throughout her whole life and military career.

Its the same with homosexuality. There is nothing inherent in being gay that makes one more likely to kill oneself. Its the stigma and discrimination faced by homosexual people that pushes them to greater risk of suicide.

This is the accepted consensus on the topic.

The way we treat the increased risk of suicide is by removing the stigma and discrimination in society, and encouraging and allowing people to be comfortable to express their sexuality and gender as they see fit.

We also need to remove stigma and discrimination of the mentally ill. But its a fallacy to say we should be encouraging the schitzophrenic to be more schitzophrenic. That simply increases the harm they do to themselves and others.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

While Hannah seems satisfied, albeit disappointed, with the process, it is bewildering to me that the AFL can decide she is eligible to play at lower levels but not at the AFLW level.

As their decision seems to largely be based on concerns about Hannah's physical size, why wouldn't this be less or a problem at the highest level of competition than it would be at lower levels?

The decision is just illogical and contradictory. Either she is eligible to play womens sport, or she isn't, yeah? If she is, let her play at whatever level she is worthy of. If she isn't, why is she allowed to compete at any level?
I agree maybe because the AFL have based their decision on the Victorian Anti Discrimination Policy and that law isn't relevant in the ACT.
The US college of paediatricians begs to differ:
here http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/1...sm-is-real-completely-destroys-it-with-truth/ (ignore the inflamitory article heading, watch the video.) if a child is chemically castrated pre-puberty then that is child abuse and nothing less.
Chilren are not chemically caste
Any reverse instances in the sporting world of this. Lady to gent actually competing anywhere?

Chris Mossier is worth a google je is a transman who made a USA
Men's Sporting Team.
 
Im the camp of going with accepted scientific consensus. So:

1) Gravity is caused by mass
2) Energy = mass x the speed of light squared
3) Special relativity explains much of Newtons work
4) Anthropic climate change is real
5) Race is a social construct
6) Uncertainty is a quality of electrons.

And so forth.

Fascinating. You have buried the "race is a social construct" amongst mostly physics theories. The further science moves away from maths and physics the uncertainty of our conclusions increase, "race is as social construct" does not belong in this list as it has no where near the level of certainty of the other points. This is a very low brow and dishonest argument tactic.

Also, "special relativity explains much of Newton's work" is such a vague statement. There are fundamental differences between Special Relativity and Newtonian Physics. For one, Newtonian physics requires infinite speed to account for gravitational orbit. Where as SR places the speed of light as the upper limit of speed.

In regards to the original topic. Biology is a part of race(denial of uncomfortable truths is a bad habit to get into, no matter how noble the intention). That's why DNA testing can tell you much of your ancestral history. Just because race is biologically true, doesn't mean we need to overly focus on it. There are far more important and interesting facets to our biology.
 
Chris Mossier is worth a google he is a transman who made a USA
Men's Sporting Team.[/QUOTE]
 
Crap decision by the AFL. Hannah’s testosterone levels are minimal and don’t allow her to be a power athlete from what I understand. She’s pre-op, but she isn’t a man.


The AFL’s reasoning that she’s too big, is just damn odd. Are we going to ban ruckman seeing as they are bigger than rovers?

Brad Hill plays in the same comp as Tom Hawkins, is that fair?
 
Crap decision by the AFL. Hannah’s testosterone levels are minimal and don’t allow her to be a power athlete from what I understand. She’s pre-op, but she isn’t a man.


The AFL’s reasoning that she’s too big, is just damn odd. Are we going to ban ruckman seeing as they are bigger than rovers?

Brad Hill plays in the same comp as Tom Hawkins, is that fair?

What makes her a woman?
 
Crap decision by the AFL. Hannah’s testosterone levels are minimal and don’t allow her to be a power athlete from what I understand. She’s pre-op, but she isn’t a man.


The AFL’s reasoning that she’s too big, is just damn odd. Are we going to ban ruckman seeing as they are bigger than rovers?

Brad Hill plays in the same comp as Tom Hawkins, is that fair?

Y chromosome. Male. Facts. Science.
 
What makes her a woman?
The hormone treatment, the fact she’s going through with the op and has decided that she identifies and wants to be as physically alike to a female as possible.
 
Crap decision by the AFL. Hannah’s testosterone levels are minimal and don’t allow her to be a power athlete from what I understand. She’s pre-op, but she isn’t a man.


The AFL’s reasoning that she’s too big, is just damn odd. Are we going to ban ruckman seeing as they are bigger than rovers?

Brad Hill plays in the same comp as Tom Hawkins, is that fair?

Has a penis.
Isnt a man.

Pick one.

Nonsense comments like this help whackjobs like Trump and Hansen gain power by making them seem relatively less insane.
 
Fascinating. You have buried the "race is a social construct" amongst mostly physics theories. The further science moves away from maths and physics the uncertainty of our conclusions increase, "race is as social construct" does not belong in this list as it has no where near the level of certainty of the other points. This is a very low brow and dishonest argument tactic.

Wut?

Is your argument physics is a science, but biology and genetics are not?

It was actually the Human Geonome project that provides the strongest evidence for race being a social construct. They mapped the human geonome FFS and it proved that 'biological race' doesnt exist. Thats accepted scientific consensus.

In regards to the original topic. Biology is a part of race(denial of uncomfortable truths is a bad habit to get into, no matter how noble the intention).

Biology is a part of race if we define it to be a part of race. There is no objective series of markers that contribute a race. We just assign an arbitrary few that vary from arbitray race to arbitray race.

For example, why is a person with dark skin, eyes and hair, and born in Africa a member of the 'African race', but a person with white skin, blue eyes and red hair born in Northern Europe not of 'the Redheadite' race? All are biological markers, and all are hereditary.

Whats the difference? Who gets to determine which combination (of countless billions) of biological markers (skin, hair and eye pigmentation, height weight, geonome, aeles, muscle mass, propensity for disease X) count as 'a race'.

As a hint, its entirely arbitrary and socially constructed. And even within those boundaries, its flexible and subjective,

Take skin color (the most often used biological marker, as its the most obvious). Walk from the middle of Africa to Northern Europe. Tell me where the line of Demarcation from [African] race to the [European] race begins. You wont see dark skin stop and white skin start. Youll see a gradual change in skin tone as you walk north.

These biological markers we attribute to 'races' are arbitrarily assigned, have no lines of demarcation.

Its totally off topic, but go and have a read elsewhere on it. If you really think about it objectively, youll see why the consensus is what it is.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The hormone treatment, the fact she’s going through with the op and has decided that she identifies and wants to be as physically alike to a female as possible.

Um yeah deciding you want to be a woman and look like one doesnt magically make it so and by deciding to go through with the op i presume you mean "hasn't gone through with the op"

Taking hormones doesn't change your sex
 
Exactly what "stuff" is getting out of hand?

The overwhelming number of transgender athletes at senior level?

People being "outraged" about anything and everything these days.
 
Im sure if their daughter/sister/ girlfriend or whatever was playing in the AFL W and had to go up against a 190cm former elite male athlete they might have second thoughts. It would be unsafe to allow her to play.
What happens if Liz Cambage the 204cm 98kg basketballer was talked into playing by Erin Phillips?

Would she be allowed to play, or is it unfair for the women of the AFLW to have to go up against a elite athlete who is 2m+ and almost 100K.

If a smaller stature transgender person nominated would they have been given the all clear?
 
Um yeah deciding you want to be a woman and look like one doesnt magically make it so and by deciding to go through with the op i presume you mean "hasn't gone through with the op"

Taking hormones doesn't change your sex
Some of you heartless bastards don’t seem to understand a damn thing when it comes to transgender people and what they are both dealing with and have to put themselves through in order to feel “right”.

It’s all so black and white for you. Well done.


Has a penis.
Isnt a man.

Pick one.

Nonsense comments like this help whackjobs like Trump and Hansen gain power by making them seem relatively less insane.
Do you understand anything about the psychology of a person who has come to the conclusion that they are in the wrong body?
 
Correct decision.

Nothing against Hannah as a person but her physical advantages (bigger than most men, let alone females) means that it would be simply unfair for the other female competitors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top