Remove this Banner Ad

Transgender

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benny78
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 www.bigfooty.com
 
kirsti said:
Transgender women yes I have written my views on this several times throughout this thread.
Click to expand...
Yes, but aren't you not catering to a minority by putting in place these boundaries that you suggest? the rules you are in favour of are very stringent, which wouldn't cater to a minority?

All you're saying is it's fine to discriminate still, but you want the discriminatory lines shifted. It's the same reasoning used by those saying transgender women should not be able to compete with women.
 
Xsess said:
[QUOTE="DemonTim, post: 49742891, member: 144892]Serious question, would you have cared if it was an attractive woman masturbating in a toilet while looking at you?
Click to expand...

Gay blokes stalking toilet blocks for casual sex are creepy f**k ups and likely disease traps. Women stalking men in toilet blocks - doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't the point of the question now was it?

Your homophobia is showing though.
 
DemonTim said:
Yes, but aren't you not catering to a minority by putting in place these boundaries that you suggest? the rules you are in favour of are very stringent, which wouldn't cater to a minority?

All you're saying is it's fine to discriminate still, but you want the discriminatory lines shifted. It's the same reasoning used by those saying transgender women should not be able to compete with women.
Click to expand...
Where have I ever objected catering to the minority?

The rules I don't agree with are the new rules for trans athletes to compete at the Olympics and play AFL, these rules are not stringent enough particularly the AFL which does not require any hormonal intervention.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

What is your stance on the current IOC and AFL Transgender policies Demon Tim?
 
kirsti said:
Where have I ever objected catering to the minority?

The rules I don't agree with are the new rules for trans athletes to compete at the Olympics and play AFL, these rules are not stringent enough particularly the AFL which does not require any hormonal intervention.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't requiring hormone intervention prevent a minority from playing? you're just moving the discrimination line to a different point. The afl seems to have removed it completely, and you disagree and want some degree of discrimination.
 
kirsti said:
What is your stance on the current IOC and AFL Transgender policies Demon Tim?
Click to expand...
My name isn't actually Demon Tim, you don't need to seperate it with a space...

I disagree with it, however currently I also disagree with trans women competing in women's sport, though my view isn't particularly strong due to my research not being vast. I've seen cases both suggesting and disputing an advantage. And I've heard women say they are both for and against it. I'd want to do more research before speaking definitively on a yes or no. I'd think some sports (weightlifting as an example) would have more advantage than others, but I'm yet to see a definitive either way. The main things I've read are about bone and joint structure, which wouldn't be countered for in hormone therapy.
 
DemonTim said:
Wouldn't requiring hormone intervention prevent a minority from playing? you're just moving the discrimination line to a different point. The afl seems to have removed it completely, and you disagree and want some degree of discrimination.
Click to expand...
I don't want discrimination I would like as level a playing field for women's sport with transgender participation. All studies I have read and through my own transition experience I believe that male to female transgender athletes do have a physical advantage over their female opponents without hormonal intervention. Finding a balance of fairness is what I have ever sought. I suggest no hormone treatment is not the right way to go and the 12 month period required by the IOC is not sufficient time to reverse the advantages of male puberty has provided trans athletes.

A trans person male to female often describes they were a female born in a male body, I felt a similar way. To enable me and other trans athletes to compete with genetically born females on a level playing field I suggest some testosterone loss is required and most studies back this up since the original Stockholm Consensus was determined back in 2003.
 
Last edited:
DemonTim said:
That wasn't the point of the question now was it?
Click to expand...

No you don't get to paint the highlighting of every unsavoury aspect of gay culture as homophobia. Your question had no point because it had no basis of fact. Whereas seedy men loitering around public toilets looking for and propositioning for gay sex in numbers that are problematic, does carry the risk of coercion (or worse) of minors and is a health risk.

Put it this way if there was a spate of seedy hetro blokes flopping out their erections and otherwise bailing up women for sex in public toilets the public outcry would be rightfully immense and I'd be saying exactly the same thing.
 
Xsess said:
No you don't get to paint the highlighting of every unsavoury aspect of gay culture as homophobia. Your question had no point because it had no basis of fact. Whereas seedy men loitering around public toilets looking for and propositioning for gay sex in numbers that are problematic, does carry the risk of coercion (or worse) of minors and is a health risk.

Put it this way if there was a spate of seedy hetro blokes flopping out their erections and otherwise bailing up women for sex in public toilets the public outcry would be rightfully immense and I'd be saying exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
So you haven't heard of dogging I take it...

The homphobia was you claiming that it's only something gay men do, it's not. Your ideas of human sexuality suggest you've got little idea about it.
 
DemonTim said:
My name isn't actually Demon Tim, you don't need to seperate it with a space...

I disagree with it, however currently I also disagree with trans women competing in women's sport, though my view isn't particularly strong due to my research not being vast. I've seen cases both suggesting and disputing an advantage. And I've heard women say they are both for and against it. I'd want to do more research before speaking definitively on a yes or no. I'd think some sports (weightlifting as an example) would have more advantage than others, but I'm yet to see a definitive either way. The main things I've read are about bone and joint structure, which wouldn't be countered for in hormone therapy.
Click to expand...
Have you read Joanna Harpers findings she acted as a referral to the OIC she is a scientist and trans athlete. She performed studies on 8 trans athletes and her findings were very interesting.

I urge sporting bodies to err on the side of caution when lowering the requirements of trans athletes. From 2004 to 2012 under the old trans OIC policy no trans athlete dominated women's sport I predict 2020 to be a different result.
 
kirsti said:
I don't want discrimination I would like as level a playing field foe women's sport with transgender participation. All studies I have read and through my own transition experience I believe that male to female transgender athletes do have a physical advantage over their female opponents. Finding a balance if fairness is what I have ever sought. I suggest no hormone treatment is not the right way to go and the 12 month period requires by the AFL also is not sufficient time to reduce the advantages of male puberty has provided trans athletes.

A trans person male to female often describes they were a female born in a male body, I felt a similar way. To enable me and other trans athletes to compete with genetically born females on a level playing field I suggest some testosterone loss is required and most studies back this up since the original Stockholm Consensus was determined back in 2003.
Click to expand...
But that is discrimination against anyone who hasn't had treatment, is it not? You said sporting fields have an obligation to cater for minorities, but how is this catering for anyone who is transgender and hasn't begun hormone therapy? Wouldn't them not being able to play be deemed discrimination?
 
kirsti said:
Have you read Joanna Harpers findings she acted as a referral to the OIC she is a scientist and trans athlete. She performed studies on 8 trans athletes and her findings were very interesting.

I urge sporting bodies to err on the side of caution when lowering the requirements of trans athletes. From 2004 to 2012 under the old trans OIC policy no trans athlete dominated women's sport I predict 2020 to be a different result.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can use the old OIC referral as evidence, then claim the new OIC guidelines are wrong. It's appealing to authority while also saying the authority is wrong.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

DemonTim said:
But that is discrimination against anyone who hasn't had treatment, is it not? You said sporting fields have an obligation to cater for minorities, but how is this catering for anyone who is transgender and hasn't begun hormone therapy? Wouldn't them not being able to play be deemed discrimination?
Click to expand...
If they haven't undergone any hormones treatment then they are still physically able to compete in males sport.
 
DemonTim said:
I don't think you can use the old OIC referral as evidence, then claim the new OIC guidelines are wrong. It's appealing to authority while also saying the authority is wrong.
Click to expand...
I am saying the IOC have got it wrong with their current policy and the old 2003 policy was a fairer policy. I am also defiantly saying the AFL have got it wrong. Which policy do you feel is fairer?
 
kirsti said:
If they haven't undergone any hormones treatment then they are still physically able to compete in males sport.
Click to expand...
So a trans woman should have to compete against men, despite not being a man?

That's a dangerous attitude.
 
kirsti said:
I am saying the IOC have got it wrong with their current policy and the old 2003 policy was a fairer policy. I am also defiantly saying the AFL have got it wrong. Which policy do you feel is fairer?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what I find fairer. You're trying to use their old policy as "authority" in terms of persuasion, but saying they're wrong now. The authority loses its persuasive power when you say it's wrong now, but right another time.

It's why I won't blindly listen to either of their rules (current or past).
 
DemonTim said:
But that is discrimination against anyone who hasn't had treatment, is it not? You said sporting fields have an obligation to cater for minorities, but how is this catering for anyone who is transgender and hasn't begun hormone therapy? Wouldn't them not being able to play be deemed discrimination?
Click to expand...
Are you advocating for male to female athletes to be allowed to compete in women's sport without any hormonal treatment to reduce testosterone levels?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

DemonTim said:
So a trans woman should have to compete against men, despite not being a man?

That's a dangerous attitude.
Click to expand...
If they haven't transitioned yes the same as I did prior to my transition do you think it is dangerous to allow male to female trans athletes to play AFL against women without hormonal treatment?
 
kirsti said:
Are you advocating for male to female athletes to be allowed to compete in women's sport without any hormonal treatment to reduce testosterone levels?
Click to expand...
No. I've made that clear. Why are you asking things I've already addressed

I'm simply saying you are fine with discrimination depending on where the line is drawn, you've said allowing those without hormone treatment to compete is wrong, that is no different to those saying that allowing transgender to compete is wrong. They are both discrimination against a minority

This was in response to you saying sporting fields are obligated to cater to minorities. The above isn't catering to a minority, it's refusing it access
 
kirsti said:
If they haven't transitioned yes the same as I did prior to my transition do you think it is dangerous to allow male to female trans athletes to play AFL against women without hormonal treatment?
Click to expand...
You're missing the point and attributing things to me I've never said

I've explicitly explained my point.
 
DemonTim said:
It doesn't matter what I find fairer. You're trying to use their old policy as "authority" in terms of persuasion, but saying they're wrong now. The authority loses its persuasive power when you say it's wrong now, but right another time.

It's why I won't blindly listen to either of their rules (current or past).
Click to expand...
Please explain the OIC in 2003 had an entirely different trans policy to what they do now. Why would it not be reasonable of me to prefer one over the other when they have very different requirements.
 
kirsti said:
Please explain the OIC in 2003 had an entirely different trans policy to what they do now. Why would it not be reasonable of me to prefer one over the other when they have very different requirements.
Click to expand...
When did I say that's not reasonable

I said you can't use it as persuasive in terms of authority. Because you're claiming the authority isn't always right. It takes away. The persuasiveness

Can you please read through what I'm actually saying prior to response? You're attributing things to me I've never said again
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom