Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[smokingjacket]

It's something I've noticed has spilt over more into media/social media platforms.

It's much worse in the French academic tradition but thankfully they limit it to fairly banal topics.

 

[WCE1987]

what are you afraid one of them eunuchs in a dress you are so interested in may have more left after chopping it off then you ever had.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Were you about when we were discussing transgender athletes in the Olympics earlier in the thread? Stuff like this



For a trangender to even compete in the Olympics they have to have had gender reassignment surgery and be on this hormone replacement therapy for a set amount of time.

None of that changes the make up of their bones. There is a reason I have been specific about weight lifting. There are many differences between the male and female pelvis. This means the femur is attached at a different angle relative to the ground. One provides a greater mechanical advantage.

Gavin smashing records is an insult to the biologically born women competitors. Look at the careful PC comments of the third place getter in that comp. They know its bullshit but feel powerless to say much about it. Sad that they are put in that position.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

None of that changes the make up of their bones. There is a reason I have been specific about weight lifting. There are many differences between the male and female pelvis. This means the femur is attached at a different angle relative to the ground. One provides a greater mechanical advantage.

Gavin smashing records is an insult to the biologically born women competitors. Look at the careful PC comments of the third place getter in that comp. They know its bullshit but feel powerless to say much about it. Sad that they are put in that position.

If the pelvic girdle argument holds water surely the I.O.C would know about it? If it's truly an unfair advantage and the science proves it beyond doubt then there should be something done about it.

 

[igon value]

If the pelvic girdle argument holds water surely the I.O.C would know about it? If it's truly an unfair advantage and the science proves it beyond doubt then there should be something done about it.

The IOC currently allow a maximum testosterone limit for transgender women athletes that is three times the maximum a natal female can produce naturally.

 

[igon value]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ouns-students-mark-down-not-use-a7664581.html

It emerged in January that staff at the University of Sussex had also been advised to use gender neutral pronouns after student requested it to help reduce transgender discrimination on campus.

 

[Chief]

Yay! The kid gets it!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The IOC currently allow a maximum testosterone limit for transgender women athletes that is three times the maximum a natal female can produce naturally.

Pretty funny you invoke science when you're on the side of denying it.

Heard of a condition called hyperandrogenism?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/12/h...yperandrogenism-in-female-athletes/index.html

...Until recently, women with naturally high levels of testosterone -- known as hyperandrogenism -- were not allowed to race without undergoing medical interventions to lower their levels of the hormones if they were measured to be within the range typically associated with men. This was a prerequisite as part of the International Association of Athletics Federations' Hyperandrogenism Regulation, which required athletes to prove that they derive no advantage from their relatively high testosterone levels, or else not compete.

The regulations were introduced in 2011 after an 18-month review by an association expert working group in conjunction with the International Olympic Committee and were "based on strong scientific consensus that the clear sex difference in sports performance is mainly due to the marked difference in male and female testosterone levels," according to a statement. They were stated to have the aim to "preserve fair competition."

But in 2015, things changed.

That year, India's fastest woman, Dutee Chand, challenged the association, arguing that she had a right to run and compete without artificially changing her body's hormones.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled in the 100-meter sprinter's favor, arguing that the association had not proved that testosterone gives athletes an unfair advantage.

The court then gave the International Association of Athletics Federations two more years to find evidence of the degree of performance advantage provided by increased levels of the hormone, which the association is now addressing...

The C.A.S findings can be found here

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_FINAL.pdf

The CAS Panel in charge of the procedure (The Hon. Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett AO, Australia
(President), Prof. Richard H. McLaren, Canada, and Dr Hans Nater, Switzerland) has suspended the “IAAF Regulation Governing Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to Compete in Women’s Competition” (the “Hyperandrogenism Regulations”) for a maximum period of two years in order to give the IAAF the opportunity
to provide the CAS with scientific evidence about the quantitative relationship between enhanced testosterone levels and improved athletic performance in hyperandrogenic athletes.

In the absence of such evidence, the CAS Panel was unable to conclude that hyperandrogenic female athletes may benefit from such a significant performance advantage that it is necessary to exclude them from competing in the female category.

They haven't yet proven that testosterone by itself does all that much to enhance performance, but if they ever do then of course this will have to be looked at.

 

[igon value]

Yay! The kid gets it!

Pretty piss poor moderation on your behalf.

 

[Chief]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ouns-students-mark-down-not-use-a7664581.html

Do you agree or disagree with the policy? Do you agree or disagree that language translates to how we treat other people? Do you agree or disagree that this particular policy will reduce discrimination?

Please show your working.

 

[igon value]

Heard of a condition called hyperandrogenism?



The C.A.S findings can be found here



They haven't yet proven that testosterone by itself does all that much to enhance performance, but if they ever do then of course this will have to be looked at.

Yes, I have. Women's bodies respond differently to testosterone than men - men get a significantly larger boost from the hormone than women.

You would think with the science not in they would err on the side of protecting women's sport in favour of naturally born women. Seems not.

 

[igon value]

Do you agree or disagree with the policy? Do you agree or disagree that language translates to how we treat other people? Do you agree or disagree that this particular policy will reduce discrimination?

Please show your working.

You're such a disingenuous turd. I am ignoring your posts from here on.

 

[Chief]

I hate how we're asked to understand the world from more than one point of view. I just want to tell everyone they are wrong and I am right!

EFA.

 

[igon value]

Yeah, I've heard of this. I still believe in everybody's individual sexual autonomy though - if you're not attracted to someone then you're just not attracted to them. How can you force somebody, anybody, to accept someone they're not attracted to as their sexual partner?

You can't.

If you assert you are female and find that potential sexual partners disagree, then how does that not hurt the same as someone not using your chosen pronoun?

Why does sexual autonomy matter more than language autonomy?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You would think with the science not in they would err on the side of protecting women's sport in favour of naturally born women. Seems not.

But then in the spirit of fairness they'd have to recategorise hyperandrogenous women again. Then recategorise athletes of African descent...

http://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html

Twenty-eight of the last 38 world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black athletes, and researchers at two universities think they know why.

A new study by researchers at Howard University, a historically black school in Washington D.C., and Duke University in North Carolina suggests why black athletes may outperform athletes of other races in running events. Physical differences in the length of the limbs and the structure of the body mean the center of gravity tends to be higher in the bodies of black people, the researchers say.

Since 1968, the world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black athletes. And since 1912, when the International Association of Athletics Federations started keeping track of the record holders in that event, only 10 non-black athletes out of 38 individuals have held the title...

No white bloke can beat Usain Bolt. He has an advantage the white guys will never have. Where does it stop?

 

[igon value]

But then in the spirit of fairness they'd have to recategorise hyperandrogenous women again. Then recategorise athletes of African descent...

No white bloke can beat Usain Bolt. He has an advantage the white guys will never have. Where does it stop?

I already answered that in this in the following post:

Yes, that arbitrariness could be defined as simply defining women as those who are not men, as opposed those who are born women, with XX chromosomes and low testosterone levels within the normal range of women (i.e. the conventional woman).

The study finds that conventional women are on average weaker than M-F transsexuals. Maybe our competitions could be divided into two: men's competitions and those who are not good enough to be considered men.

The nature's whim argument says that because someone like Gary Ablett is a genetic freak endowed with natural advantages not available to the average person, that those who were born men and choose to become women and compete are the same as a superbly talented normal woman with genetic advantages like Gary Ablett. That is, if all sports are performed by athletic freaks outside the norm, what is one more naturally abnormal person?

However we already have competitions for such freaks who enjoy the physiological advantages of male biology: men's competitions.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If you assert you are female and find that potential sexual partners disagree, then how does that not hurt the same as someone not using your chosen pronoun?

Why does sexual autonomy matter more than language autonomy?

Because when you're addressing someone, the idea is common courtesy unless you are actively out to offend them in some way. Choosing a sexual partner, be it a one night stand of a long-term relationship, that's something far more intimate. Yes, there's common courtesy that should be at play here too regarding acceptance and rejection, but getting naked and swapping fluids - it's a world away from conversation in general.

 

[igon value]

Because when you're addressing someone, the idea is common courtesy unless you are actively out to offend them in some way. Choosing a sexual partner, be it a one night stand of a long-term relationship, that's something far more intimate. Yes, there's common courtesy that should be at play here too regarding acceptance and rejection, but getting naked and swapping fluids - it's a world away from conversation in general.

Should common courtesy be legislated for?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I already answered that in this in the following post:

...However we already have competitions for such freaks who enjoy the physiological advantages of male biology: men's competitions.

But there's hyperandrogenous women, who enjoy testosterone levels higher than the female norm. They're female 'freaks', and until recently there was a question mark over their heads.

Further study is needed. We have the weightlifter as a single example so far, but if it emerges that future transgender athletes consistently wipe the floor with their opponents then definitely I.O.C policy will have to be looked at.

Until that time however, I think they should be allowed to play on.

 

[igon value]

But there's hyperandrogenous women, who enjoy testosterone levels higher than the female norm. They're female 'freaks', and until recently there was a question mark over their heads.

Further study is needed. We have the weightlifter as a single example so far, but if it emerges that future transgender athletes consistently wipe the floor with their opponents then definitely I.O.C policy will have to be looked at.

Until that time however, I think they should be allowed to play on.

Female 'freaks' are still female, fundamentally, just with slightly different biology.

Sure, let them play on. Let's see what happens. But I think this will end up being a lot like the Spanish men's basketball team in the 2000 Paralympics.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Should common courtesy be legislated for?

I'd like to think it shouldn't, that most of us have enough decency about us that it wouldn't be a problem. Would you, on meeting a transgender who informed you they wanted to be known as a woman, deliberately ignore her wishes and call her a bloke? To her face?

On that though, legislation, if it came through, would have to rely on intent. That Chinese bloke at your workplace, it sounds from your example that he made a genuine mistake and suffered for it. His intent wasn't to insult, but misunderstandings will always happen like this. I don't actually see HOW they could legislate it with burdens of proof in mind.

 

[igon value]

I'd like to think it shouldn't, that most of us have enough decency about us that it wouldn't be a problem. Would you, on meeting a transgender who informed you they wanted to be known as a woman, deliberately ignore her wishes and call her a bloke? To her face?

It would depend on how much they actually looked like a woman. I would err on the side of politeness, but I wouldn't like to be forced to acknowledge their preference in cases where I don't agree. Why must I be forced to indulge the subjective realities of somebody else?

On that though, legislation, if it came through, would have to rely on intent. That Chinese bloke at your workplace, it sounds from your example that he made a genuine mistake and suffered for it. His intent wasn't to insult, but misunderstandings will always happen like this. I don't actually see HOW they could legislate it with burdens of proof in mind.

He came very close to being sacked to sort the problem out until a second solution came up.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Sure, let them play on. Let's see what happens. But I think this will end up being a lot like the Spanish men's basketball team in the 2000 Paralympics.

Yeah, but those guys consciously and deliberately LIED.

 

[igon value]

Yeah, but those guys consciously and deliberately LIED.

Perhaps they identified as transabled?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

...I wouldn't like to be forced to acknowledge their preference in cases where I don't agree...

I understand. Again, I can't see how any legislation could actually force you to comply by proving your intention was to deliberately insult.

He came very close to being sacked to sort the problem out until a second solution came up.

How did they solve it? Good to know the poor bloke wasn't sacked though