NO TROLLS Transgender Discrimination AFL Lawsuit

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 19, 2007
12,951
7,062
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Not really sure of your point.
The point is one of the smallest AFL players vs one of the biggest AFLW players. That's the disparity between men and women. Some of the biggest female strength athletes don't look that big even against average guys.

Patrick Dangerfield is not a sprinter but would win Gold at the womens 100M at the olympics.
Female world records can be beaten by many men and at lower levels.

Amateur male athletes can outlift drug tested female powerlifters.

Just look at Laurel Hubbard: terrible technique, trained in NZ, probably NOT taking peds when most of the elite of the elite are, beaten by a convicted drug cheat, 43 years old and still smashing out above female athletes.

Someone please. Tell me how this is not a problem.
 
Sep 19, 2007
12,951
7,062
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Caleb Daniel is in the 1 percentile (probably less) for size of male footballers who make it to the AFL level. He has overcome this disadvantage by being skilled in other areas and also a lot of hard work no doubt.

Now think of all the 1 percentile sized female footballers. It's just as hard for them to make it to the top level due to that disadvantage, but it can be done. Introducing natal males into the competition would push those who were the 1 percentiles out completely.

So I guess you've gotta ask the question - which group of people unfortunately have to miss out, bearing in mind the whole reason why separate women's competition exists in the first place?
I remember some female going into battle with NFL players and she got destroyed. Even the biggest AFLW players would absolutely be hammered if they played along side the guys, even in b grade country footy.
 
Jul 22, 2013
18,779
27,430
AFL Club
Carlton
I remember some female going into battle with NFL players and she got destroyed. Even the biggest AFLW players would absolutely be hammered if they played along side the guys, even in b grade country footy.

A good school Firsts would smash a composite AFLW team. Literally and figuratively.

Back in the day the Vic State volleyball coach used to bring my school side up to Melbourne once a month to sharpen up the state women's team. We invariably wiped the floor with them. Even at 17 years old.

The girls hated it, but they didn't have a choice in the matter if they wanted to play State. Before long we hated it too, and declined to participate any more. Felt too much like bullying, and it isn't a contact sport.

Which is one thing I REALLY don't understand about Hannah Mouncey. How could you not feel like an ass exploiting a massive physical advantage for your own selfish gratification?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

blckcaviar

Team Captain
Jul 21, 2018
484
1,259
AFL Club
Carlton
If the AFLW had a law 7+ feet tall women couldn't play AFLW for the same reason transgender women like Mouncey aren't allowed to play due to the concern about the average AFLW player getting hurt then there would be some consistency to the argument. If, however, you do not have an issue with a 7 feet tall woman playing AFLW but you do with a transgendered woman the size of Mouncey for example, then I think it is a discriminative point of view because the issue wouldn't be the safety of women, it would be not liking a transgender woman injuring non-transgendered woman and I think in that lense it is not really accepting the transgendered person as a woman, which is the crux of the issues that the transgendered face in general.

But they aren't women. They are and always will be biological men, with XY chromosomes, bigger bones, larger skulls, more muscle mass, longer limbs, broader shoulders etc. People may be forced to be polite and use their preferred pronouns, however that does not change nature.

The height issue is only 1 of many physical advantages. A man and woman of the same height are in no way comparable in strength. Men are much stronger, and once they have gone through male puberty they retain most of their strength regardless of any hormones they take or surgery they get (most of them don't get surgery BTW)
 
But they aren't women.

Misgendering is often seen as transphobic, just saying being that you are into being polite.

They are and always will be biological men, with XY chromosomes, bigger bones, larger skulls, more muscle mass, longer limbs, broader shoulders etc.

Nobody said anything about what they were born as or what their chromosomes are.

Muscle mass declined with HRT as does muscle strength, I think they normally go on HRT for 2 years. How comparable is a post HRT trans woman vs a women of a similar size? I don't know, it would be something you can measure. There may be variances but if it is within the variance of genetic lottery among women should you boycott them?

Men have slightly longer legs, shorter torso, our wingspan is generally speaking our height +2 inches. Men and women can have longer wingspans than is normal. Our wingspan has grown from what used to be the same as your height and doctors used to use that to estimate the height of people who couldn't stand up. NBA likes players with abnormally large wingspans, it gives a competitive advantage in their spot.

Is the concern the safety of women and the integrity of the competition or just an excuse to discriminate? I know a lot of people think about Mouncey or the extreme cases but by just being yes or no it takes all the nuance that you could be discriminating against trans women who have no material difference post HRT.

Obviously, sports should be fair, but we are fair to the point of accepting genetic lottery, even extreme variance. Aaron Sandilands and Peter Bell played in the same team, there was a pretty big genetic difference between the two. There are women born bigger and heavier than Sandilands, they aren't playing in the AFLW atm, but they could do if they wanted. Do people have a problem with a woman over seven feet tall weighing around 130kg wiping out your five foot nothing players?

I feel for Mouncey because she had the misfortune to be born on the large side, but everyone who talks about the issue now has the attitude of NBA players coming over and dominating the league.

I think it is important to have a fair competition, but policy and decisions should be based on science and common sense. Just saying no, to anyone, I do not think is fair to everyone unless there is science and data that suggest we should say no to everyone.

People may be forced to be polite and use their preferred pronouns, however that does not change nature.

I am not talking about nature, preferred pronouns or being polite because you are afraid of the consequences. I have more respect for TERFs than I do for people who are polite out of coercion. I can take someone disagreeing with something, as long as it is based on science. I do not think progress is about being nice, it is about growing.

The height issue is only 1 of many physical advantages. A man and woman of the same height are in no way comparable in strength. Men are much stronger, and once they have gone through male puberty they retain most of their strength regardless of any hormones they take or surgery they get (most of them don't get surgery BTW)

How extensive is your knowledge of HRT and the lived experience of trans women? Are you an expert in this field, is there research that documents this opinion? There is a massive variance between women of the same height, much like there are with men.

It is important to determine if the variance is material when it comes to a game like football and if it is within what is genetic lottery of women.

My point is... is there enough scientific evidence to suggest the variability is material enough to matter in AFL, on average, would a safeguard on extremes allow us to have a fair competition without the need to discriminate against all trans women? Does the data even exist to even make that kind of determination?

To me it isn't a matter of what I think, feel, want or desire. It is what does the evidence say. I have extreme doubts what people are posting in this thread can be backed up by evidence, not across the board.

I just don't think people should be closed-minded.
 
Sep 19, 2007
12,951
7,062
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Misgendering is often seen as transphobic, just saying being that you are into being polite.



Nobody said anything about what they were born as or what their chromosomes are.

Muscle mass declined with HRT as does muscle strength, I think they normally go on HRT for 2 years. How comparable is a post HRT trans woman vs a women of a similar size? I don't know, it would be something you can measure. There may be variances but if it is within the variance of genetic lottery among women should you boycott them?

Men have slightly longer legs, shorter torso, our wingspan is generally speaking our height +2 inches. Men and women can have longer wingspans than is normal. Our wingspan has grown from what used to be the same as your height and doctors used to use that to estimate the height of people who couldn't stand up. NBA likes players with abnormally large wingspans, it gives a competitive advantage in their spot.

Is the concern the safety of women and the integrity of the competition or just an excuse to discriminate? I know a lot of people think about Mouncey or the extreme cases but by just being yes or no it takes all the nuance that you could be discriminating against trans women who have no material difference post HRT.

Obviously, sports should be fair, but we are fair to the point of accepting genetic lottery, even extreme variance. Aaron Sandilands and Peter Bell played in the same team, there was a pretty big genetic difference between the two. There are women born bigger and heavier than Sandilands, they aren't playing in the AFLW atm, but they could do if they wanted. Do people have a problem with a woman over seven feet tall weighing around 130kg wiping out your five foot nothing players?

I feel for Mouncey because she had the misfortune to be born on the large side, but everyone who talks about the issue now has the attitude of NBA players coming over and dominating the league.

I think it is important to have a fair competition, but policy and decisions should be based on science and common sense. Just saying no, to anyone, I do not think is fair to everyone unless there is science and data that suggest we should say no to everyone.



I am not talking about nature, preferred pronouns or being polite because you are afraid of the consequences. I have more respect for TERFs than I do for people who are polite out of coercion. I can take someone disagreeing with something, as long as it is based on science. I do not think progress is about being nice, it is about growing.



How extensive is your knowledge of HRT and the lived experience of trans women? Are you an expert in this field, is there research that documents this opinion? There is a massive variance between women of the same height, much like there are with men.

It is important to determine if the variance is material when it comes to a game like football and if it is within what is genetic lottery of women.

My point is... is there enough scientific evidence to suggest the variability is material enough to matter in AFL, on average, would a safeguard on extremes allow us to have a fair competition without the need to discriminate against all trans women? Does the data even exist to even make that kind of determination?

To me it isn't a matter of what I think, feel, want or desire. It is what does the evidence say. I have extreme doubts what people are posting in this thread can be backed up by evidence, not across the board.

I just don't think people should be closed-minded.

I am not sure you realize that even some of the biggest female shot putters are comparably small compared to even non elite men. The do not share the same muscle mass.

How would you feel if Joel Embiid from the Philadelphia 76ers became Joeline Embiid at 7 ft tall. None of the women over 2m tall have any great muscle mass. Given that statistically there are very few women over 7ft tall and definitely not with any degree of muscle mass. How would that allow fairness in sport if we allowed transgender athletes to compete with athletes born as female.

You may have missed a point I made about transgender athletes being able to "Cheat" by getting all of the advantages of testosterone and coming down to an "acceptable" level. Where as those born as female must work up to that level.

I'd also argue that trans women who have gone into HRT still have male characteristics such as bone structure, shape, definition, muscle mass. If you watch some of the transition timelines it takes at least two years before trans women take on more feminine features. Even years, and I mean like ten years later, these trans women still retain some shape. I should point out that these athletes are NOT likely to be required to take HRT to that level.


(It's been recorded in studies that athletes who have taken steroids have retained a percentage of that strength long after using them. Yes they will lose some strength from that high point, but they will always be in surplus if they continue training) This is why I have a big problem with convicted drug cheats because they will always have an advantage.
 

Shannon M

All Australian
Feb 1, 2021
756
998
AFL Club
Adelaide
K so what happens if Aaron Sandilands tackles Caleb Daniels and hurts him. Does the AFL get sued because a small guy has to play in the same league as a monster?


Caleb Daniels chose to take part in a sport where he's likely the shortest and lightest. He knew the risks going in.

Women playing AFLW didn't choose to take part in a sport where they're potentially up against big boned 193cm, 100kg men that are transitioning into women.

Even transgenders of the same size as women will have natural pound for pound strength advantages over women.

Hannah Mouncey is free to play AFL. There's no rule stopping women from taking part in the men's game.
 

blckcaviar

Team Captain
Jul 21, 2018
484
1,259
AFL Club
Carlton
Misgendering is often seen as transphobic,

Well to be honest here I don't see the big problem with saying transwomen aren't women. I really don't buy into the gender thing, so to me men and women are defined by their sex. I'm sorry if that's transphobic, but to me its literally facts. Transwomen are transwomen. They aren't women. To call them women does a disservice to biological women. You can't "become" a woman by dressing up like them or taking hormones or having surgery. No more than I can become black by wearing facepaint and getting cornrows.
Why is it seen as so offensive to "identify" as a black person when you're not, but "identifying" as a woman is something that can't be questioned?


As to the rest of your argument, yes people born as men who have gone through male puberty will always have a significant advantage over biological women, because of bone mass, muscle density, skeletal frame and other things. If you can't see that Ms Mouncey has a physical advantage over people born as women, who never went through male puberty, then I dunno what to say.
 

Shannon M

All Australian
Feb 1, 2021
756
998
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think we should leave it up to women to decide if transwomen are women too or a third gender.

How would most women feel about rocking up to the maternity ward and the midwife is Hannah Mouncey?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 23, 2018
6,479
7,553
AFL Club
Essendon

Tbonefreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 13, 2013
7,900
10,146
Wagga
AFL Club
Fremantle
Well...fk it.

Let Hannah play. Probably would only be for one game anyway. Probably the only aflw game I'd watch.

Then we can all sit back and be like



I told you so
 
I am not sure you realize that even some of the biggest female shot putters are comparably small compared to even non elite men. The do not share the same muscle mass.

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.

How would you feel if Joel Embiid from the Philadelphia 76ers became Joeline Embiid at 7 ft tall.

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.


None of the women over 2m tall have any great muscle mass. Given that statistically there are very few women over 7ft tall and definitely not with any degree of muscle mass. How would that allow fairness in sport if we allowed transgender athletes to compete with athletes born as female.

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.

You may have missed a point I made about transgender athletes being able to "Cheat" by getting all of the advantages of testosterone and coming down to an "acceptable" level. Where as those born as female must work up to that level.

I don't think I missed the point, i just don't think there is any merit to that argument.

I'd also argue that trans women who have gone into HRT still have male characteristics such as bone structure, shape, definition, muscle mass. If you watch some of the transition timelines it takes at least two years before trans women take on more feminine features. Even years, and I mean like ten years later, these trans women still retain some shape. I should point out that these athletes are NOT likely to be required to take HRT to that level.

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.

(It's been recorded in studies that athletes who have taken steroids have retained a percentage of that strength long after using them. Yes they will lose some strength from that high point, but they will always be in surplus if they continue training) This is why I have a big problem with convicted drug cheats because they will always have an advantage.

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?
 

WCE_phil

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 14, 2009
13,147
21,982
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
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?

Yeah like say the advantages of the male pelvis, bone density, ligament strength, higher VO2 max, with a larger heart pumping more blood are just a start. The male pelvic structure and bone density alone should have it banned alone based on it being a contact sport.

Mouncey is a former semi professional male athlete who only changed sports from european handball to womens footy after they weren't allowed to use the same changerooms as the other women as the other women weren't comfortable even after being allowed to compete in the same competiton.
 
Jul 22, 2013
18,779
27,430
AFL Club
Carlton
Misgendering is often seen as transphobic, just saying being that you are into being polite.



Nobody said anything about what they were born as or what their chromosomes are.

Muscle mass declined with HRT as does muscle strength, I think they normally go on HRT for 2 years. How comparable is a post HRT trans woman vs a women of a similar size? I don't know, it would be something you can measure. There may be variances but if it is within the variance of genetic lottery among women should you boycott them?

Men have slightly longer legs, shorter torso, our wingspan is generally speaking our height +2 inches. Men and women can have longer wingspans than is normal. Our wingspan has grown from what used to be the same as your height and doctors used to use that to estimate the height of people who couldn't stand up. NBA likes players with abnormally large wingspans, it gives a competitive advantage in their spot.

Is the concern the safety of women and the integrity of the competition or just an excuse to discriminate? I know a lot of people think about Mouncey or the extreme cases but by just being yes or no it takes all the nuance that you could be discriminating against trans women who have no material difference post HRT.

Obviously, sports should be fair, but we are fair to the point of accepting genetic lottery, even extreme variance. Aaron Sandilands and Peter Bell played in the same team, there was a pretty big genetic difference between the two. There are women born bigger and heavier than Sandilands, they aren't playing in the AFLW atm, but they could do if they wanted. Do people have a problem with a woman over seven feet tall weighing around 130kg wiping out your five foot nothing players?

I feel for Mouncey because she had the misfortune to be born on the large side, but everyone who talks about the issue now has the attitude of NBA players coming over and dominating the league.

I think it is important to have a fair competition, but policy and decisions should be based on science and common sense. Just saying no, to anyone, I do not think is fair to everyone unless there is science and data that suggest we should say no to everyone.



I am not talking about nature, preferred pronouns or being polite because you are afraid of the consequences. I have more respect for TERFs than I do for people who are polite out of coercion. I can take someone disagreeing with something, as long as it is based on science. I do not think progress is about being nice, it is about growing.



How extensive is your knowledge of HRT and the lived experience of trans women? Are you an expert in this field, is there research that documents this opinion? There is a massive variance between women of the same height, much like there are with men.

It is important to determine if the variance is material when it comes to a game like football and if it is within what is genetic lottery of women.

My point is... is there enough scientific evidence to suggest the variability is material enough to matter in AFL, on average, would a safeguard on extremes allow us to have a fair competition without the need to discriminate against all trans women? Does the data even exist to even make that kind of determination?

To me it isn't a matter of what I think, feel, want or desire. It is what does the evidence say. I have extreme doubts what people are posting in this thread can be backed up by evidence, not across the board.

I just don't think people should be closed-minded.

No they shouldn't be closed minded.

There is in fact a large body of research on the subject.

  • The lower limit of healthy range testosterone level in a male is just under 10 nmol/liter, with a higher limit of around 30.
  • The healthy range in a woman is between 0.3 and around 2 nmol/liter.
  • The IOC, for reasons best known to themselves, has ruled that a trans person who gets below 10nmol/liter for 12 months can compete as a woman. That's five times higher, and still (just) within the healthy male range.
  • The AFL limit is half the IOC number, and only a relatively modest 2&1/2 times the healthy female range
  • Muscle mass deterioration varies from individual to individual, but in the case of a muscular male making the transition it is estimated that at least 5 years is required to reshape the body to the maintained testosterone level.
Bottom line is that a woman who went anywhere near the male lower limit allowable in trans athletes by the IOC would suffer significant health problems, unmistakable loss of feminine characteristics and would almost certainly be under suspicion of doping. It's crazy.

But the open minded wouldn't stop there, as bad as it is.

Women have a 15-20% mechanical disadvantage at the hip joint, which gives them that appealing gait but also makes them slower and also vulnerable to lower joint injuries as a bonus. The have a biological predisposition to immediately convert excess nutrition to fat and large masses of empty fat cells waiting to be filled. And then, because they have smaller and less powerful musculature it's much harder for them to carry those normal, healthy extra fat deposits. They have a far smaller working surface area in the lungs and that exchange area is far less efficient - total disadvantage in rapid oxygen uptake is around 40%.

None of this can be wished away just to satisfy the inclusivity vibe.
 
No they shouldn't be closed minded.

There is in fact a large body of research on the subject.

  • The lower limit of healthy range testosterone level in a male is just under 10 nmol/liter, with a higher limit of around 30.
  • The healthy range in a woman is between 0.3 and around 2 nmol/liter.
  • The IOC, for reasons best known to themselves, has ruled that a trans person who gets below 10nmol/liter for 12 months can compete as a woman. That's five times higher, and still (just) within the healthy male range.
  • The AFL limit is half the IOC number, and only a relatively modest 2&1/2 times the healthy female range
  • Muscle mass deterioration varies from individual to individual, but in the case of a muscular male making the transition it is estimated that at least 5 years is required to reshape the body to the maintained testosterone level.
Bottom line is that a woman who went anywhere near the male lower limit allowable in trans athletes by the IOC would suffer significant health problems, unmistakable loss of feminine characteristics and would almost certainly be under suspicion of doping. It's crazy.

But the open minded wouldn't stop there, as bad as it is.

Women have a 15-20% mechanical disadvantage at the hip joint, which gives them that appealing gait but also makes them slower and also vulnerable to lower joint injuries as a bonus. The have a biological predisposition to immediately convert excess nutrition to fat and large masses of empty fat cells waiting to be filled. And then, because they have smaller and less powerful musculature it's much harder for them to carry those normal, healthy extra fat deposits. They have a far smaller working surface area in the lungs and that exchange area is far less efficient - total disadvantage in rapid oxygen uptake is around 40%.

None of this can be wished away just to satisfy the inclusivity vibe.

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.”


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.
 
Apr 23, 2016
30,511
42,679
AFL Club
Essendon
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.”


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 female data looks seriously oddly distributed. I'd question the circumstances surrounding those testosterone levels.

968482c1da.jpg
 
The female data looks seriously oddly distributed. I'd question the circumstances surrounding those testosterone levels.

968482c1da.jpg

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.
 
The point is one of the smallest AFL players vs one of the biggest AFLW players. That's the disparity between men and women. Some of the biggest female strength athletes don't look that big even against average guys.

Patrick Dangerfield is not a sprinter but would win Gold at the womens 100M at the olympics.
Female world records can be beaten by many men and at lower levels.

Amateur male athletes can outlift drug tested female powerlifters.

Just look at Laurel Hubbard: terrible technique, trained in NZ, probably NOT taking peds when most of the elite of the elite are, beaten by a convicted drug cheat, 43 years old and still smashing out above female athletes.

Someone please. Tell me how this is not a problem.

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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back