811–820 of 960 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because apparently it's OK to hate on trans people, scapegoat any current issue on this particular demographics, and do everything possible to make their lives as miserable as possible.
Where are you getting this impression?
Get some help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then I lost to a woman twice my age. We are not talking about elite athletics here. If someone is upset about a transwoman finishing 150th in the local 10k race they need to work that out with a therapist or something.
No one's talking about 10k races that don't matter much. But people are talking about races and events in high school or college that do affect things like scholarships or future professional athletic endeavors. That's really where most of the heartburn started, as far as I can tell. I suppose one option could be to have two lists, the nominal ranking of participants and then a trans-adjusted one that removes those p…
The "heartburn" really started when conservatives decided they could exploit hatred of the other by attacking non-binary folks. They got a "spokeswoman" who finished sixth in the NCAA swimming championships (no future professional career potential) to spread their hate and divisiveness.
It allowed Republican politicians to claim children were allowed to identify as animals and use litter boxes in schools. Spreading lies to breed hate.
It's just a modern application of the playbook against other races (which has also been revived).
> "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - President Lyndon B. Johnson
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also cis-male people who will "pass" that SRY test if they take it for some reason... This is a dumb ass way to try and define the woman's category... which is about the expected result of bigots trying to work backwards from the result they want headlines about.
> There's also cis-male people who will "pass" that SRY test if they take it for some reason... This is news to me - which males are you talking about here? > This is a dumb ass way to try and define the woman's category... It's really not, though. They found a marker they can test for, and have clearly defined exceptions.
it doesn't really do anything after puberty
it's about gene expression and it can be discarded genetically
so yes there are "men" walking around who would show negative on a SRY test and qualify
again, they tried this exact thing in 1996
and it went over so badly they ended it by 2000
this is 100% politics and conservative people with power trying to manipulate things
biology is not binary, it's messy and not exact
there are "common" things and less common
Another approach would have been to accommodate the less common
But you'll notice they didn't even try to do that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SRY testing was done at the 1996 games and for a while before that. 8 cisgender women tested positive at that games. Far more than the number of transgender athletes who have ever participated. This resulted in genetic testing being changed from all women to on-suspicion. The bottom line is these tests will catch dozens of people who are phenotypically women, who can even give birth. Why should men be allowed to comp…
From what I've read, these women all had CAIS or similar, and testosterone had no effect on their bodies. Thankfully the new IOC guidelines have an exception for that and would let them compete with women. But I want to point out that XY+CAIS individuals cannot conceive or carry a child. They have no ovaries and no uterus. > Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women? They are, if they are f…
one type most definitely would "fail" SRY test
yet they can give birth using donated egg, IVF, etc.
nature makes many variations, it's not exact, it's not binary
there is common and less common and that's why it's messy
A different approach would have been to accommodate the less common
But they purposely decided not to do that because that's the opposite of their goals
The more we protect women rights in sports, the narrower our definition of a woman gets
By 2030 would Olympic Committee ask woman that gain muscles too faster then the average woman not to participate? To make it "fair for real woman"?
While men are allowed the strongest competition and their unique builds are celebrated, woman are constantly limited by our genetics, hormone levels and chromosomes.
"Can't stray too far from an average it aren't fair for woman" is itself not fair for woman
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ratio of men to women who are at 1500 Elo in chess is like worse than 90:1, so no, you host an intermediate level tournament and it will be almost all men. Well, mostly boys but that’s current chess for you. But it’s not just that. If there are no top women in any kind of leagues in chess, that will only further discourage women from participating competitively in chess in the first place. Note that most competit…
The male-to-female ratio at 1500 elo is not 90:1, but more like 9:1. 10% is a visible minority. But I see where our disagreement is. You think there ought to be more women in chess. I think different people can do different things, so women don't need to match men in every statistic and vice versa. If we open it up to universal participation and it turns out to be a male-dominated game, then let it be. I don't think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2016_Summer_O... See all three medalists.
I think not many people are arguing that we shouldn’t exclude people based on testosterone in elite events, but none of these were trans women, these were all women who lived their entire lives as women from the moment they were born
Height is also an advantage in sports, and women statistically are much shorter then man, should we ban tall woman from sports? Should we say "she exhibits a male amount of height, it isn't fair to let her participate with 'normal' woman"?
The more "fair" we make woman competition the narrower our definition of a woman gets.
If you want to make it fair, let's pick a random chemical in man exclude people from competition based on their readings. That surely would make sport career look more fun for everyone, training all your life only to find out that some committee doesn't consider you a man. And then we can celebrate equality by noticing that man-to-woman sport participation ratio got closer to 50-50
Earlier quoted context omitted.
first of all, you need a source for 400. 2nd of all 400/11000 athletes is 3%. that's roughly inline with population statistics in the 15-25 demographic
> 2nd of all 400/11000 athletes is 3%. that's roughly inline with population statistics in the 15-25 demographic No its not 3% for the world, for USA maybe but most countries barely have any trans people at all.
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-...