Man Named 'Tiffany' Is Dominating Women's Pro Volleyball in Brazil

[John V]

Wonderful, so a fully transitioned athlete should be no problem on account of testosterone levels.  We can knock that one right off the list.  

Are you agreeing on the 3.08 limit?

Height and reach differences already exist between cis gendered compititers.  I'm fine with long bones or odd bones.

T level differences already exist between cis competitors. Why do you support limits on those?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you agreeing on the 3.08 limit?

Me, no.  I do, however, appreciate that we're at least setting some kind of metrics that you would find acceptable here.   Though, I recall an interview from the last time this was a big deal in which a great idea was bounced out.  Whatever range limit is set.... make it the same for cis and trans athletes.  There's a good argument for raising or lowering the range for cis or trans.  

T level differences already exist between cis competitors. Why do you support limits on those?

I support those same limits in competitors of either sex (cis or trans) for the same reason that they're part of our anti-doping scheme and the same reason that I support trans athletes in cis gendered matches.  We understand the performance enhancing effects of substances x y and z.  We allow for ranges, so I'm not really sure what the problem is supposed to be?

Any word on your support of transitioning preteen boys and girls? Take your time.

[John V]

Are you agreeing on the 3.08 limit?

Me, no. 

Then why did you say: "Wonderful, so a fully transitioned athlete should be no problem on account of testosterone levels. We can knock that one right off the list" in response to my proposal of 3.08?

What limit do you support, and what's you're reasoning for that limit?

---

Any word on your support of transitioning preteen boys and girls?  Take your time.

Of course not. It's a red herring. You're trying to change the subject because you're losing the current argument. That's one of your standard moves.

[The Grand Nudger]

Me, no. 

Then why did you say: "Wonderful, so a fully transitioned athlete should be no problem on account of testosterone levels.  We can knock that one right off the list" in response to my proposal of 3.08?

Because I'm trying to determine the specifics of how you would personally accept trans athletes in competition with cis-gendered peers.  If a trans athletes fell within the range you indicated then we no longer have to consider that metric.    

What limit do you support, and what's you're reasoning for that limit?

You can also read the iocs own documentation for that, or any of the great writeups that female olympians and athletes in general have written about their experience with the current ranges.

[paulpablo]

The reason males and females don't compete together in some sports is to give more female competitors better earnings, higher pay per views, more sponsors and recognition.  

The male's advantage in those sports isn't that every male can beat every woman, it's based on averages that on average males are better at certain sports and will push them out of positions they're in which they can get decent money and recognition.

Trans women who transition after their full height spurt will still have the same height advantage on average that a man has on average. 

There are also hip/pelvis differences between men and women.  A trans female who transitioned after puberty will also narrower hips and a more effective running stance, the same advantage men tend to have in running.

I am pretty much on the fence about the argument but I can't see a flaw in what alpha male is mentioning here.  A trans female who transitioned after puberty will have the some of the same advantages that a biological male has on average vs a biological female.

This is a moot point when addressing Khemical with this argument, he doesn't believe biological men on average are better than women at a lot of the sports I previously mentioned.

It's kind of pointless talking about biology to someone who doesn't believe what mainstream science says about basic sexual dimorphism between males and females and how it affects sports. Or he does know he's talking shit and its just a troll move.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course not. It's a red herring. You're trying to change the subject because you're losing the current argument. That's one of your standard moves.

So it is a stamp that no one is selling, after all?  Why waste time talking about testosterone levels or any other metrics when you would place a requirement that you would not support anyway? Just start there, say it with me " No, it will never be okay and I'm not okay with anything that would meet my own requirements."

I see alot of people talking about "mainstream science"..I don't think those people have actually read it. The differences between males and females..on average..and even in competition, are not what people think..and as another poster has already put it, unless whatever range that expresses itself as is greater then the negative effect of transition.........or less than the positive effect..........the difference between males and females is moot point. We're not discussing males competing with females. We're discussing trans athletes.

[John V]

Because I'm trying to determine the specifics of how you would personally accept trans athletes in competition with cis-gendered peers. 

More of your standard BS when losing: I'm not really taking a position, I'm just trying to understand you.

If a trans athletes fell within the range you indicated then we no longer have to consider that metric. 

Yet, since the IOC range, and your personal unstated range, aren't the same as mine, that observation doesn't get us anywhere.

Would you support lowering the trans T limit to the 99th percentile of cis athletes? If not, why not? What's your reasoning for a higher level in trans athletes?

---

So it is a stamp that no one is selling, after all?  Why waste time talking about testosterone levels or any other metrics when you would place a requirement that you would not support anyway?

Answer is obvious: because I'm not the one determining the requirements.

Just start there, say it with me " No, it will never be okay and I'm not okay with anything that would meet my own requirements."

Nope. As puberty blocking is allowed regardless of my position, it's a requirement that can and is being met.

I see alot of people talking about "mainstream science"..I don't think those people have actually read it.  The differences between males and females..on average..and even in competition, are not what people think..

Then why are you against Mike Tyson in a dress? You're trying to have it both ways.

and as another poster has already put it, unless whatever range that expresses itself as is greater then the negative effect of transition.........or less than the positive effect..........the difference between males and females is moot point.  We're not discussing males competing with females.  

See, you go back to it in the same paragraph. If you really think that the difference between men and women is negligible, then why would you support any limits at all?

You really seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and making shit up as you go.

[Catholic_Lady]

He knows, guys. He's just being disingenuous and obtuse on purpose. This is what he does. One of the many reasons he's the only person on this forum I have blocked.

[John V]

It's kind of pointless talking about biology to someone who doesn't believe what mainstream science says about basic sexual dimorphism between males and females and how it affects sports.  Or he does know he's talking shit and its just a troll move.

^^This most likely. He can't be so stupid as to think his bit about average people being couch potatoes has any relevance to this discussion...can he?

[The Grand Nudger]

More of your standard BS when losing: I'm not really taking a position, I'm just trying to understand you.

You can either complain that I'm strawmanning you, or complain that I try to understand you.  There's a third option, ofc.  

Yet, since the IOC range, and your personal unstated range, aren't the same as mine, that observation doesn't get us anywhere.

The ioc is currently discussing their range.  We know, at least, that you think 3.08 is a good number regardless of whatever they'll settle upon.  The ioc won;t be consulting either of us, ofc...and so the observation only gets us as far as it needs to or ever could. We can say that theres at least a number that, if trans athletes came in under..you'd be comfortable with on that count. That's an important thing to know in a conversation between us, don't you think? It;s the same reason you're asking the question.

Would you support lowering the trans T limit to the 99th percentile of cis athletes? If not, why not? What's your reasoning for a higher level in trans athletes?

I think that having the same ranges for trans or cis competitors is one of the best ideas I've heard, personally.  I'm fine with a higher range in the case of cis and trans.