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

[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.

At least Ham admits that trans women have a male advantage over the other women, and admits that he doesn't care.

[John V]

I think that having the same ranges for trans or cis competitors is one of the best ideas I've heard, personally. 

When I read this I thought surely that's already come up in a thread this length. And, yes, Cecelia made pretty much the same argument as me (aside from her bigoted view that Christians would never agree with her) back on page 2:

I see no problem with her competing in the women's league, as long as her testosterone levels have reached the appropriate level.  Whatever advantages she has from her per-transitional period are offset by disadvantages from that same transition.  Ideally, she would have transitioned earlier in life, which would have minimized any advantages she might have.  Of course our good Christian friends don't want that because the idea of transgender people freaks them out.  Just like gay people do--only now they know we're not going to be readily accepting of their hate.  They hope that we'll just accept their transgender hate (because they have to hate someone, right?  How else will they show how Christian they are?)

The main question at this point is, what's an appropriate T level?  I've proposed that it be set at the 99th percentile of cis female athletes, the logic being obvious. I've seen no rationale for the IOC's limit, which is more than 3 times that amount. 

And regarding Mike Tyson in a dress, yes, it is an issue. In Connecticut, a high school runner is allowed to compete as a female just on declaration - there's been no hormone therapy whatsoever.
http://usatodayhss.com/2017/connecticut-...ontroversy

[Edwardo Piet]

There are physiological differences between men and women that can't be reversed. Body shape, height, bone structure and length, body fat content, strength of ligaments and tendons, muscle mass, and oxygen carrying capacity through higher hemoglobin levels... these are still factors. I was assuming you'd read this because I brought it up earlier.

Which would be fair enough if men were competing with women.

But if a woman gets to be a certain strength or have certain abilities... she can't be thrown out for cheating just for being too talented.

Cheating is taking performance enhancing drugs, not being trans or cis. Just like being black or white or Chinese isn't cheating either. It's for women to compete, not for a certain genetically type of person to compete. If certain genetic categories had to compete we'd be dividing people up by race too. And dividing trans by cis is wrong for the same reason that dividing black and white is wrong.

Women should compete in the women's category, and not be forced into the men's category for winning too much.

Last I checked, sex change surgery isn't cheating.

[Shell B]

I mean, I have to agree with most people here that men DO tend to be stronger, faster, etc. than women. Of course it doesn't apply across the board. Of course there are anomalies, but to suggest that men and women are physically equal is just sort of silly. There are well-documented physical differences that most certainly trend toward differences in ability. I mean, you'd never buy a male golden retriever and expect it to be the same size as a female, right? It's just biology, not politics. All of that said, to suggest that women are athletically inferior is equally stupid. A man doesn't have an advantage over a woman just because he's male. He has to also train. All other things being equal, the man will likely do better. Other factors being unequal, a woman can definitely kick a man's ass in a variety of sports. These aren't disputable opinions. They're facts. I don't know how you people can go on and on about it as if we don't already know all of these things for a fact. The only thing in question is whether transitioning does enough to mitigate the gender difference in sports. I don't know, but I do know men and women are not equally matched physically, all other things being equal.

Perfect summary

---

No, it doesn't. This is what I've been saying all along. The distinct biological differences they do have tend to make them stronger, etc, but it does not make them more *able* to be athletic. A woman can train, get in her peak physical condition and smoke the majority of men who are sitting on their couches. You get the advantages by training, not by being born. Unless you're saying a woman can't train to become stronger than a man, then we don't disagree.

... Really? So the female just has to work extra hard? Why are you mentioning males who don't care about sports? All factors equal: males are more athletic.

I don't know if y'all are being willfully obtuse. I can't possibly keep explaining what I mean over and over again.

[SaStrike]

Perfect summary

---

... Really? So the female just has to work extra hard? Why are you mentioning males who don't care about sports? All factors equal: males are more athletic.

I don't know if y'all are being willfully obtuse. I can't possibly keep explaining what I mean over and over again.

you're being perpendicular

[John V]

My position on puberty blocking is, as already explained, irrelevant for purposes of this discussion, as it's going to happen (or not) regardless of my position. As a side issue, personally I'm against it, because prepubescent gender dysphoria resolves in the vast majority of cases by late adolescence. Considering that, puberty blocking is unnecessary at best and child abuse at worst. Unlike Khem, I won't say to go look it up yourselves, I'll give a link to a good article that covers both sides of the issue:
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speak...n-children

Cheating is taking performance enhancing drugs, not being trans or cis. Just like being black or white or Chinese isn't cheating either. It's for women to compete, not for a certain genetically type of person to compete. If certain genetic categories had to compete we'd be dividing people up by race too. And dividing trans by cis is wrong for the same reason that dividing black and white is wrong.

No Hammy, that's not true. From the article above:

Twin studies are instrumental in elucidating the degree to which a trait is biologically determined before birth. Since monozygotic twins are conceived with exactly the same DNA and are exposed to the same prenatal environment, traits that are solely determined by genes and/or by the prenatal environment, will manifest in both identical twins 100 percent of the time. Race is an example of a trait that identical twins share 100 percent of the time because it is solely determined by genes.

The largest transsexual twin study to date examines 110 twin pairs and was published by Dr. Milton Diamond in the May 2013 issue of the International Journal of Transgenderism. 19 Table 5 documents that the number of monozygotic twin pairs concordant for transsexualism is greater than that of dizygotic twin pairs. This suggests a possible biological predisposition for gender dysphoria. The most significant data entry, however, is the low number of concordant monozygotic twin pairs. Only 21 monozygotic twin pairs out of a total of 74 monozygotic pairs, or 28 percent, were concordant for transsexualism; the remaining 72 percent of identical twins were discordant for transsexualism. This means that at least 72 percent of what accounts for transsexualism in one twin and not in the other occurs after birth and is not biological. Such a high discordance rate among identical twins proves that no one is born pre-determined to have gender dysphoria let alone pre-determined to identify as transgender or transsexual. This is consistent with the dramatic rates of resolution of gender dysphoria documented among children when they are not encouraged to impersonate the opposite sex. The low concordance rate also supports the theory that persistent GD is dues predominantly to the impact of non-shared environmental influences upon certain biologically vulnerable children. To be clear, twin studies alone establish that the “alternative perspective” of an “innate gender identity” arising from prenatally “feminized” or “masculinized” brains trapped in the wrong body is in fact an ideological belief that has no basis in rigorous science.

(I know Khem doesn't care about mainstream science, but I think some other people do.)

[shadow]

There are physiological differences between men and women that can't be reversed. Body shape, height, bone structure and length, body fat content, strength of ligaments and tendons, muscle mass, and oxygen carrying capacity through higher hemoglobin levels... these are still factors. I was assuming you'd read this because I brought it up earlier.

Which would be fair enough if men were competing with women.

But if a woman gets to be a certain strength or have certain abilities... she can't be thrown out for cheating just for being too talented.

Cheating is taking performance enhancing drugs, not being trans or cis. Just like being black or white or Chinese isn't cheating either. It's for women to compete, not for a certain genetically type of person to compete. If certain genetic categories had to compete we'd be dividing people up by race too. And dividing trans by cis is wrong for the same reason that dividing black and white is wrong.

Women should compete in the women's category, and not be forced into the men's category for winning too much.

Last I checked, sex change surgery isn't cheating.

No, you don't choose your genetics. You choose to change genders. That's why you could easily abuse it.

I really think it would help for you to have some understandings of the difference between the men's and women's categories and just how distinct they are.

These are the times of the competitors in the 100 metre finals from the last summer olympics:

Men
9.81
9.89
9.91
9.93
9.94
9.96
10.04
10.06

Women
10.71
10.83
10.86
10.86
10.90
10.92
10.94
11.80

This is from the 200 metre dash:

Men
19.78
20.02
20.12
20.12
20.13
20.19
20.23
20.43

Women
21.78
21.88
22.15
22.21
22.31
22.34
22.65
22.69

And the 400 metre dash:

Men
43.03
43.76
43.85
44.01
44.25
44.36
44.45
44.61

Women
49.44
49.51
49.85
50.34
50.41
50.97
51.24
51.25

Look at these results, fairly typical for competitive athletics (with the exception that the men's 400m was a world record which was awesome!!!!). This spread is perpetuated at all levels of athletics. If a female athlete possessed any of the advantage that a male athlete had, do you see why I'm saying she would be so out of place? She'd dominate. Take the 8th place finisher in the men's 400 metre heat... he'd have to be 5 seconds slower not to win a gold medal in the women's category. 5 seconds is forever in sprints... I cannot even describe to you how big of a difference that makes. There's a less than 2 second spread between the gold medalist and the 8th place finisher in both of the races: compare it to that.

My point is that a tiny physiological advantage cannot be written off with competitive competition. It's too, well, competitive! I've shown in my last post why much of this advantage would remain, and now I'm showing you why any of it would be a massive upset to the sport. This isn't a matter of subjective evaluation of what's fair, it's a matter of physiology and the very clear benefit that many aspects of male physiology have on performance.

[The Grand Nudger]

The main question at this point is, what's an appropriate T level?  I've proposed that it be set at the 99th percentile of cis female athletes, the logic being obvious. I've seen no rationale for the IOC's limit, which is more than 3 times that amount. 

Then you should go read the commissions review.  You and I don't have to agree with it, but you could only be calling it arbitrary as hyperbole.

And regarding Mike Tyson in a dress, yes, it is an issue. In Connecticut, a high school runner is allowed to compete as a female just on declaration - there's been no hormone therapy whatsoever.
http://usatodayhss.com/2017/connecticut-...ontroversy

The man in a dress strikes again!  Perhaps that could be resolved.  I'm surprised that some random high school is so "progressive".  Most of the time state sport regs force a competitor in with their birth sex..such as a certain trans wrestler from earlier forced to compete with the girls. 

@shadow

My point is that a tiny physiological advantage cannot be written off with competitive competition. It's too, well, competitive! 

They're "written off" constantly between cis gender competitors.  Is it a small advantage, btw..and is that small advantage larger or greater than the effect of transitioning?

[Catholic_Lady]

Perfect summary

---

... Really? So the female just has to work extra hard? Why are you mentioning males who don't care about sports? All factors equal: males are more athletic.

I don't know if y'all are being willfully obtuse. I can't possibly keep explaining what I mean over and over again.

I dont understand how you define the word athletic, which seems to be the hold up. But it appears semantics asside, we agree.

[John V]

Then you should go read the commissions review.  You and I don't have to agree with it, but you could only be calling it arbitrary as hyperbole.

Post a link to it and I'll read it. All I've found is their statement, which provides no support for the chosen level.

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/C...ism-en.pdf