What's new

Transgender and sports


Steven Crowder seems to be about your speed.

A trans person wins among the slowest batch of swimmers in more than a decade, and everyone goes nuts, because it's unfair that the other girls were too slow to compete in any year except this one.
 
Steven Crowder seems to be about your speed.

A trans person wins among the slowest batch of swimmers in more than a decade, and everyone goes nuts, because it's unfair that the other girls were too slow to compete in any year except this one.
There were some interesting points made in the exchange such as trans athletes being allowed double the level of testosterone that female athletes are allowed to have without that female athlete being banned from the sport for doping, and that if sports are divided among genders then it must require making 57 different (or however many genders there are) divisions but sports are current sports are two divisions because our species has two biological sexes.
 
There were some interesting points made in the exchange such as trans athletes being allowed double the level of testosterone that female athletes are allowed to have without that female athlete being banned from the sport for doping, and that if sports are divided among genders then it must require making 57 different (or however many genders there are) divisions but sports are current sports are two divisions because our species has two biological sexes.
The second point isn't at all interesting; there are two groups of sports because more than 95% of the population is in the man/boy or woman/girl gender.

For the first part, I couldn't find the document limiting the amount of testosterone that cis women athletes are allowed to have. Frankly, that sounds made up to me. Trans women do have a limit of <10 nmol/L (linked below). Please link to where cis women are limited to <5 nmol/L, if you can.

 
Trans women do have a limit of <10 nmol/L (linked below). Please link to where cis women are limited to <5 nmol/L, if you can.
[<5 nmol/L] is still far above levels in most women, including elite female athletes, whose levels range from 0.12 to 1.79 nanomoles per liter, states a 22-page IAAF document defending the organization's decision. ... "Therefore, a concentration of 5 nmol/L is an appropriate decision limit for purposes of these Regulations," the IAAF stated.

 
1) The IAAF is not the NCAA, so talking about two different organization as if they are the same is dishonest.
2) From your link:
In its decision, the CAS wrote it "was unable to conclude that hyperandrogenic female athletes may benefit from such a significant performance advantage that it is necessary to exclude them from competing in the female category."
3) Most importantly, this limit from the IAAF is the same for cis women and trans women. You have disproven your own claim.

So, it seems your claim was either made up or dishonestly assembled.
 
For some politicians and those who are anti-LGBTQ+, it certainly is just hate. But here’s the thing, plenty of people can be perfectly kind and loving to transgender people and also acknowledge biology and men and women exist. I don’t need to believe the semantic twisted nonsense someone like One Brow spews to be kind or caring about another person. Trying to use such delusional nonsense doesn’t help the case that these people should be treated with the same kindness and respect of any other human being because they should. For instance in the legislative hearing yesterday when one of the state Senators said “There’s no way of knowing the difference of a man or woman” there’s a reason people scoff at that and think the person saying it is entirely insane and agenda driven themselves.
I think there's definitely room for debate on what it means to be transgender. I don't think a lot of the public even knows what it means. They believe it's some sort of mental disease or perversion.

However, I don't think it's debatable that the powers that are pushing this anti-trans agenda actually don't give a **** about women's sports. Just like with CRT, they've found a way to scare a lot of moderate folks into their camp. It's not a coincidence that the same group (Alliance Defending Freedom) that pushed the Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit are the ones pushing much of the anti-trans laws today.

As I've said, these folks aren't going to be satisfied with banning trans athletes. They want to dismantle ALL the gains that the LGBT community has made over the last several decades.


From closing hospitals and clinics that provide care to pushing child abuse laws. Now, if you're a teacher, doctor, etc who suspects a child might be trans, you legally must report it or face punishment yourself. Is this really about "fairness" or "parental rights?" Why do a bunch of government bureaucrats know better than parents? Isn't that what Terry McAuliffe got in trouble for saying regarding public education?

What's funny is that it exempts the child abuse crime for parents of intersex children from providing them with gender affirming care, including surgeries. But wait, wouldn't that be child abuse So are we for parent rights or not? Why can parents decide when their child is intersex but not trans?


It's alarming to me that transphobia has become a way for the far right to attract new recruits. It's pretty obvious to me that this isn't at all about children, parent's rights, or women's sports. For Republicans and their far right allies, it's about using issues for political gain no matter how much it hurts minority populations.

They're not going to stop with trans sports bans. They're not going to stop with ending health care for trans people. They're already talking about ending Obergefell. They want their mythical culture of the 1950s back where women stayed in the kitchen, blacks knew their place, and white Christian men had all the privileges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, it seems your claim was either made up or dishonestly assembled.
It is neither. That is why you can't find evidence to the contrary. The NCAA defers to the guidelines set by the parent organizations of sports such as the IAAF. The only exception is for swimming, for this year only, appliers only to transgender women (not to transgender men or biological females), and that was instituted during this swimming season for the remainder of this season in swimming which has now concluded. Going forward the NCAA will follow the guidelines of USA Swimming which limits testosterone in women to 5 nmol/L.

With regards to the quote you pulled from the article, did you understand it? Did you bother to read the very next sentence? The IAAF tried to implement the 5 nmol/L seven or so years ago and got sued at with time with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) striking the rule down with the quote you cited. The IAAF then spent 2 years doing a scientific study proving that testosterone provides a significant performance advantage and re-instituted the 5 nmol/L which stands to this day because it is now backed scientific study.

Lia Thomas was cheating but the NCAA was so afraid of a lawsuit that it made a one year exception that covered one athlete and now that athlete has no more eligibility left. Going forward an athlete will not be able to do what Lia Thomas did in the NCAA as future athletes will be subject to the guidelines of sport parent organization USA Swimming.
 
Last edited:
She has the intelligence of a ****ing goldfish. To her it's all just one thing, the other. Pete Buttigieg is a gay man married to another gay man. Why would he go into a woman's restroom? It doesn't even make sense.

I'm also still pretty confused about what supposedly goes on in women's restrooms. I mean do you ladies do your business with the stall door open? Is it all **** out in there? I can count on zero hands how many times I've seen another dude's junk in a public bathroom. I can also count on zero hands how many times someone is just hanging out, straight chillin' in the bathroom, like it's the cool new hangout. I thought bathrooms were for urinating or defecating in. That's sort of get in get it done, wash your damn hands, and get out type of thing as far as I'm concerned. But MTG is gonna MTG.
I don't disagree at all.

Put there's this weird belief that LGBT people engage in sex acts in the restroom instead of doing what "straight" people do and go #1 and #2. I think a lot of this has to do with the fear instilled in Americans during the 1970s and 1980s about gay people. Gay people were essentially equated to pedos. Same is being done with trans people. They're looked at as perverts.
 
What's funny is that it exempts the child abuse crime for parents of intersex children from providing them with gender affirming care, including surgeries. But wait, wouldn't that be child abuse So are we for parent rights or not? Why can parents decide when their child is intersex but not trans?
Because one issue is biological and the other is a social construct that research has shown has a better outcome when addressing it after puberty. The better question is why you are so interested in the genitals of other people's children.
 
I agree here, but that just makes the fight more important.
I don't disagree. But until the public knows what being transgender is even about, Republicans are going to own the majority of state houses, Congress, and the entire Judicial branch. By the time the public actually figures out what transgender even means, Republicans will have erased 3 decades worth of gains for the LGBT community. They're already talking about overturning Obergefell and Griswold. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they soon start bringing up overturning Brown v Board. Especially if they win the midterms and Trump wins in 2024.

 
Back
Top