That was me responding to A Theist's question. I don't think that they're too strong for cisgendered women after hormonal adjustments have been made. I'm just going along with what I've read on this subject thus far. It's not like the IOC has set this as regulation for the Olympics for no reason. And that's the current scientific/medical advice anyway ... probably based on sketchy data, admittedly. I'll keep reading.

(March 1, 2018 at 11:10 am)Shell B Wrote: If it were the case that they were too strong compared to all cis women, then only trans women would win. True fairness considers both sides. Eventually, we'll sort it out so everyone has a fair shot.

But if the category is female aren't they all the same side?

(March 1, 2018 at 11:12 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2018 at 11:18 pm)Shell B Wrote: Being a bigger woman, that’s not my impression. I know loads of guys I could take. Men aren’t naturally athletic. Humans are. Both men and women get fat or fit dependent on their lifestyles. Now, men do tend to be stronger than women, but women aren’t any less athletic.

By "more athletic than women," I meant they are stronger and faster, have more muscle mass, etc.... basically, better at physical sports that involve those things (which the vast majority do). In my case, much better runners since that's the sport I was in. I wasn't referring to looks or being fat vs fit.

I don't mean looks, either. I mean, women are as athletic as men when you're using the term generally to refer to fitness. We may not be as fast or as strong, but we're born able to be athletic as women. I might not be explaining what I mean well enough.

(March 1, 2018 at 11:14 am)Grandizer Wrote: That was me responding to A Theist's question. I don't think that they're too strong for cisgendered women after hormonal adjustments have been made. I'm just going along with what I've read on this subject thus far. It's not like the IOC has set this as regulation for the Olympics for no reason. And that's the current scientific/medical advice anyway ... probably based on sketchy data, admittedly. I'll keep reading.

Yeah that's just it after all the hormonal adjustments and everything it seems the only excuse left for banning transwomen is transphobia.

To ban all transwomen from any sport just seems incredibly immoral to me. They can't compete with men because they're not men. They can't compete with women because they win? I don't get it. Women winning the women's category seems kind of normal to me. Whether they were born a woman or not seems kind of 100% irrelevant.

If all black people always won at boxing should black people be banned from boxing or forced to play against "their own kind"? I think not.

It all just sounds like utter bigotry to me.

(March 1, 2018 at 4:36 am)shadow Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 2:28 am)pool the matey Wrote: Lol that's where you're wrong,
trans women =/= men dressing up as women.
Seriously. Half the debate would be solved if everyone was on the same page. For those of you that aren't up to date, the only issue remaining is whether the trans women are weakened enough to the level of a normal women in order to compete, I'd trust the medical professionals on that but apparently some people think they need to be much further weakened, they don't know up to what degree but probably up to a degree where it's impossible for them to win anything.

You still can't really compensate for all physiological differences, like the fact that women have wider hips, higher body fat content, or are naturally shorter. These are very important to consider when you're at a high level of sport!

The thought of intentionally 'weakening' an athlete is cruel. It goes so strongly against the nature of competitive sport. I can give it some more thought when I have more time, because I've never thought of this academically. I'm just going on pure common sense from ~10 years of competing, and my understanding of the whole spirit of competitive athletics. I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone provided an actual academic study on the effect of hormone treatment on a man's athletic capability? I think that would be relevant here. I can search academic journals about this later today if no one else has something credible.

---

(February 28, 2018 at 10:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I made my post about how we trained with the guys in running *before* I saw this post lol.

I think as runners we definitely have a better awareness of the biophysical differences between men and women, athletically, because we train together and because we can measure someone's ability exactly since it's all measured by time.

(Edited)

Yes, exactly. It's like the two categories train relatively the same, but margins in track are so refined that it wouldn't make any sense at all to run them together at all in competition. Since it's measured so precisely, the difference becomes clear.

Out of curiosity, what track events do/did you compete in? I think you said you ran cross country, so I'm assuming long or middle distance?

Yeah, in running, body shape is very important and men's frames are much more ideal. Longer legs, larger lungs, and narrower hips (and of course, more muscle mass and bone density)

I remember the girl who held our school's record in cross from the 1980's (about 20 years prior to when I was in school), her time was still slower than most of our current varsity guys.

I was in cross country, yes, and in track I did mid distance. So, the 400 and 800. But that was back in the day when I was in school. I don't do comparative running anymore, just run for exercise now a days.

You?

Totally off-topic, but I think of her any time I talk about distance running. The fastest girl in my school went on to do track in college and then disappeared in one of the most famous missing persons cases of my lifetime. We were in the same grade at school. She was a super nice kid. It sucks that they haven't found her or at least her body. Her dad, who I believe still lives in my hometown, has been looking for her for 15 years or so.

(March 1, 2018 at 10:48 am)Hammy Wrote: Even if all transgendered women were "too strong" compared to all cisgendered women.... what's wrong with transwomen winning? Are only ciswomen allowed to win?

As me and a few others have already explained in detail, the "problem" is that being a transwomen means you are biologically male, and therefore have a male advantage over cis women, who are biologically female. Sports are divided up by sex, not gender. In a women's competition, yes, only people who are biological female and therefore don't have a male advantage should be "allowed" to compete and win.

You just admitted above that you don't care if transwomen have a male advtange over the other women and beat them. You specifically said "even of they are stronger and will win, why not just let them?" You think they should be allowed to compete against cis women who dont have a male advantage and beat them anyway. You just admitted it.

You are not an athlete and you're not a woman. Neither are Grandizer and Tiz. So I can "semi" see why it doesnt matter to you that someone with a male advantage would compete in the women's division, with women who don't have a male advantage, and crush their records and get first place due to their male advantage that all the other women don't have. I can see why this may seem trivial to someone who is a man and has never competed in sports ("What's wrong ladies, just let that transwoman over there with a male advantage beat you all, no biggie! You'll just continue to be the physically weaker sex!"). ...Not understanding competitiveness and the hard work a person puts into their sport, you're just going to default to the trans side of everything because it's the PC thing to do.

(March 1, 2018 at 11:41 am)Shell B Wrote: Totally off-topic, but I think of her any time I talk about distance running. The fastest girl in my school went on to do track in college and then disappeared in one of the most famous missing persons cases of my lifetime. We were in the same grade at school. She was a super nice kid. It sucks that they haven't found her or at least her body. Her dad, who I believe still lives in my hometown, has been looking for her for 15 years or so.

Wow, she must really be fast if they were never able to find her.

















Sorry.

(March 1, 2018 at 12:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Neither are Grandizer and Tiz. So I can "semi" see why it doesnt matter to you that someone with a male advantage would compete in the women's division, with women who don't have a male advantage, and crush their records and get first place due to their male advantage that all the other women don't have. I can see why this may seem trivial to someone who is a man and has never competed in sports ("What's wrong ladies, just let that transwoman over there with a male advantage beat you all, no biggie! You'll just continue to be the physically weaker sex!"). ...Not understanding competitiveness and the hard work a person puts into their sport, you're just going to default to the trans side of everything because it's the PC thing to do.

You see wrong. Perhaps you can point me to those all already weakened transwomen crushing records and getting first place in women's sports? Just give us a handful, that's all.

(March 1, 2018 at 11:41 am)Shell B Wrote: Totally off-topic, but I think of her any time I talk about distance running. The fastest girl in my school went on to do track in college and then disappeared in one of the most famous missing persons cases of my lifetime. We were in the same grade at school. She was a super nice kid. It sucks that they haven't found her or at least her body. Her dad, who I believe still lives in my hometown, has been looking for her for 15 years or so.

Are you talking about Maura Murray? You knew her???

---

(March 1, 2018 at 11:24 am)Shell B Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 11:12 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: By "more athletic than women," I meant they are stronger and faster, have more muscle mass, etc.... basically, better at physical sports that involve those things (which the vast majority do). In my case, much better runners since that's the sport I was in. I wasn't referring to looks or being fat vs fit.

I don't mean looks, either. I mean, women are as athletic as men when you're using the term generally to refer to fitness. We may not be as fast or as strong, but we're born able to be athletic as women. I might not be explaining what I mean well enough.

All I meant by that was that men are fundamentally stronger/faster than women so will be better at sports that involve those things (which is most of them). If "more athletic" was the wrong term, my bad. But hopefully you know what I meant lol.