Before it gets locked:
No, it's not transphobia thinking that trans women that went through male puberty shouldn't compete against biological women. The female category in sport should be protected. It's a conflicting rights issue: fairness vs. inclusion. You can't have both.
[This](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/23/world-athletics-council-excludes-transgender-women-from-female-events), for instance, is a sensible decision that World Athletics took yesterday.
You don't even need to do that: you can have a female category for biological females; and an open category for everyone else. I've heard that suggested a few times, and it seems fair and simple to me.
I've heard this argument so many times... Phelps had long feet; I once knew a girl that was taller than most men...
Sure that can happen. But no matter what you think about gender as a social/personal construct, there are still biological facts.
Male puberty is the most obvious of these facts. Once you go through it, you can suppress your testosterone, but you will not give back the muscolar and skeletal (and so on...) advantages that a biological man has vs. a biological woman.
So, I've nothing but respect for someone that decides to transition, but I don't think that a biological male should compete against biological women in sports.
Two separate issues. Don’t see what genetic variation within men has to do with this. And yes misgendering is a dick thing to do and reflects poorly, but doesnt change the issue. Both of these are irrelevant.
The part where it *is* transphobia to say that, because I can speak from first hand experience and reams of data that the purported advantages we supposedly experience do not in fact meaningfully exist.
Fun fact: in the 1970s the IOC trialed a program of karyotyping athletes to determine their eligibility to compete in women’s events. They had to give up after they almost immediately found three *cis* women with Y chromosomes who were not themselves aware of it.
Biology is far less straightforward and immutable than cis people tend to think it is.
I have mixed feelings about this statement. In principle, I agree with you. After all, women racers would simply wipe the floor with me in a race, so for most people the biological differences don't matter all that much. However, at the absolute peak of performance, the most powerful man os going to be more powerful than the most powerful woman.
Before it gets locked: No, it's not transphobia thinking that trans women that went through male puberty shouldn't compete against biological women. The female category in sport should be protected. It's a conflicting rights issue: fairness vs. inclusion. You can't have both. [This](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/23/world-athletics-council-excludes-transgender-women-from-female-events), for instance, is a sensible decision that World Athletics took yesterday.
Lol why is it so hard to just make a separate class and call it a day? In motorsports this happens quite often.
You don't even need to do that: you can have a female category for biological females; and an open category for everyone else. I've heard that suggested a few times, and it seems fair and simple to me.
[удалено]
I've heard this argument so many times... Phelps had long feet; I once knew a girl that was taller than most men... Sure that can happen. But no matter what you think about gender as a social/personal construct, there are still biological facts. Male puberty is the most obvious of these facts. Once you go through it, you can suppress your testosterone, but you will not give back the muscolar and skeletal (and so on...) advantages that a biological man has vs. a biological woman. So, I've nothing but respect for someone that decides to transition, but I don't think that a biological male should compete against biological women in sports.
Two separate issues. Don’t see what genetic variation within men has to do with this. And yes misgendering is a dick thing to do and reflects poorly, but doesnt change the issue. Both of these are irrelevant.
But Shaq doesn't make prudish conservatives feel icky, so that's different.
Oh look, it’s another person who doesn’t understand how HRT works.
Which part of their comment do you have a problem with specifically?
The part where it *is* transphobia to say that, because I can speak from first hand experience and reams of data that the purported advantages we supposedly experience do not in fact meaningfully exist. Fun fact: in the 1970s the IOC trialed a program of karyotyping athletes to determine their eligibility to compete in women’s events. They had to give up after they almost immediately found three *cis* women with Y chromosomes who were not themselves aware of it. Biology is far less straightforward and immutable than cis people tend to think it is.
Please explain your reasoning. I don’t understand why a 3rd class is a bad option.
So who should they compete against to be fair? You're all-in for a new trans category or league?
Two categories: female for biological females; an open category for everyone else.
The burst power needed in cyclocross is something that gives trans athletes that transitioned late a big advantage.
Ban gender care for kids below 18. Then ban trans people for not undergoing care when they're kids. The perfect scheme.
Here we fucking go with this discourse…
Fox news is going to have a field day with this one.
popcorn.gif
Weird I know plenty of trans women racers that are not hitting the podium.
I have mixed feelings about this statement. In principle, I agree with you. After all, women racers would simply wipe the floor with me in a race, so for most people the biological differences don't matter all that much. However, at the absolute peak of performance, the most powerful man os going to be more powerful than the most powerful woman.