Trans individuals are killing female sports

[Master 112]

seriously- if someone were to be speaking about black people or mexicans on this board in the manner some here reference trans individuals, there'd be banhammerings and hard ones.

[canuckistani]

14 hours ago, 112 said:

You can't just say "it's science" when the nature of psychiatric diagnostics is inherently philosophical.

 

You are outside your intellectual weight class.

Actually you can decisively say 'its science, overruled', when the nature of PSYCHOLOGICAL diagnosis is inherently philosophical. The PSYCHIATRIC recommendations TO PSYCHOLOGY is decisively in the field of science, as it fits all criterias - empirical, quantifiable evidence and presence of a falsifiable mechanism. 

[Master 112]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Actually you can decisively say 'its science, overruled', when the nature of PSYCHOLOGICAL diagnosis is inherently philosophical. The PSYCHIATRIC recommendations TO PSYCHOLOGY is decisively in the field of science, as it fits all criterias - empirical, quantifiable evidence and presence of a falsifiable mechanism. 

And yet there is STILL, within the medical community, debate as to whether or not gender incongruence is a mental disorder.

 

naslund's thought is more or less the equivalent of this: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/16/nigerian-student-gay-marriage_n_3934518.html

 

What qualifies as an illness or disorder when it comes to the mind will always lie outside of what science can render proof of.

 

e: naslund attacks me for having an 'opinion' but fails to recognize that this ENTIRE CONVERSATION comes down to 'opinion' by his definition of the word.

Edited May 12, 2019 by 112

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, 112 said:

And yet there is STILL, within the medical community, debate as to whether or not gender incongruence is a mental disorder.

Sure, whether something is to be classified a difference or an illness is a matter of social perception and politics, not objective empiricism of science. 

1 minute ago, 112 said:

What qualifies as an illness or disorder when it comes to the mind will always lie outside of what science can render proof of.

Always ? Thats a strong leap and making assumption that the human brain cannot be quantified, ever, via any process concievable to man, including the still developing field of quantum uncertainty analysis 

[Master 112]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Sure, whether something is to be classified a difference or an illness is a matter of social perception and politics, not objective empiricism of science.

I guess we agree well enough.

 

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Always ? Thats a strong leap and making assumption that the human brain cannot be quantified, ever, via any process concievable to man, including the still developing field of quantum uncertainty analysis 

It will always come down to philosophy, I'm sorry to say. A broken leg is not a law of the universe.

[canuckistani]

6 minutes ago, 112 said:

I guess we agree well enough.

 

It will always come down to philosophy, I'm sorry to say. A broken leg is not a law of the universe.

Could be, is a matter of belief, not a matter of science. Could also be that one day we can not only encapsulate every single sensory input, memory mechanism and neural pathways into a digitized version, where not only can we 'clone' a completely functional brain of any species we've encountered so far, we could also predict your choice 10 minutes into the future with an accuracy of 99.9999%, ergo, the entire human brain being on a no different level of understanding as a motherboard + CPU + HDD + RAM is today, along with the exact knowledge and predictibility of the software that is running the system.

Edited May 12, 2019 by canuckistani

[Master 112]

Just now, canuckistani said:

Could be, is a matter of belief, not a matter of science. Could also be that one day we can not only encapsulate every single sensory input, memory mechanism and neural pathways into a digitized version, where not only can we 'clone' a completely functional brain of any species we've encountered so far, we could also predict your choice 10 minutes into the future with an accuracy of 99.9999%, ergo, the entire human brain being on a no different level of understanding as a motherboard + CPU + HDD + RAM is today. 

I'm too strong of a spirit for that type of determinism. 

 

I appreciate your posts, for what it's worth- you're a good thinker.

[canuckistani]

13 hours ago, Jack_T said:

Of all the women in North America competing in sport - how many do you think compete against transgender athletes? More or less than the number of  intersex individuals in North America per cent wise?

 

 

 

 

Irrelevant. It does not matter if 230 pound Mike Tyson is the ONLY one competing in the welterweight class and beating Floyd Mayweather to a pulp in 2 rounds. It is still unfair on the entire welterweight class for the same reason it is for female athletes to compete with non-female athletes. I've posted a paper that cites the problem, from the POV of a lawyer and pro female athlete, who is quoting the relevant science. And yet, for all your sophistry re: chromosomal differences of gender/sex, you failed to touch that. I wonder why. 

[canuckistani]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think it could certainly be unfair. But no this isn't a slippery slope straight to hell or all of female sport being ruined. Its an issue that I'm sure can be worked out.

 

There's an interesting thing going on right now with a female South African track star, she's born female biologically, but she has very high testosterone. So the IOC has decided that she has to chemically reduce her testosterone levels to continue to compete. Doesn't that seem silly as well? https://www.wired.com/story/caster-semenya-and-the-twisted-politics-of-testosterone/

 

She's just naturally the way she is and has a supposed advantage. Just like Phelps had with his unusually low lactic acid production, apparently he only produces 1/2 of what other swimmers do giving him a massive advantage. So why didn't they chemically up Phelps lactic acid production? 

 

I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know taking this debate to a place where people even question someone's nature is wrong. These folks exist, they're part of the human spectrum, and they have rights. But so does everyone else. Its not easy. 

 

False. 

Caster Semaya is a XY specimen with a mutation in her SRY gene. She is most definitively NOT born female biologically. 

[canuckistani]

5 minutes ago, 112 said:

I'm too strong of a spirit for that type of determinism. 

It doesn't matter if you are too strong or too weak, its an equally valid possibility as 'brain cannot be quantified by science' ideology. Neither is a scientific position to hold per se, with the only thing tilting it in favor of absolute determinism is the fact that so far we've been able to explain certain cognitive responses directly in terms of the determinitive analysis. We know for eg, what a shot of testosterone will do to the brain, what dopamine will do, etc. This is determinitive. We are even getting to the level of quantifying responses and predictive analysis in terms of medical dosage. The door is definitively open to the notion of 'brain = completely understood, including the ability to theoretically predict your very next thought'. 

5 minutes ago, 112 said:

I appreciate your posts, for what it's worth- you're a good thinker.

Thank you. 

[AV.]

42 minutes ago, Kragar said:

You are probably correct regarding their reaction.  That isn't my concern.

 

At least Wambach (I presume... I don't remember hearing her name until now) and Williams, or Michael Phelps for that matter, are competing on a fair playing field.  They do have an edge due to how their bodies were born and developed naturally.  Going through trans surgery and/or hormone therapy is not natural.  If nature is the way to go, then self-identification is not a factor.  And we all know how well that will go over.

This is correct, IF, nature is the way to go.

 

But nature itself, in some contexts, can be discriminatory.

 

Good points though.

[canuckistani]

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

It doesn't.

 

Assuming we are talking about the same type of scholarships (post-secondary, post-graduate, athletic-based, etc), I would say - and I have no evidence or literature to back this up - that I'm fairly certain no person between the ages of 14 - 25 (roughly, the 'typical' school age range) is transitioning for any reason that is separate from their own body/gender/sex dysmorphia.

And i am fairly certain that I would've easily considered transitioning in the sports i was a 'nobody at, as a male, but auto millionaire as, as a woman'. So would many.  Regardless of why they wanna transition, it does not negate the point that XY gene holders have a decisive sporting advantage over all that are not XY, amounting to essentially, doping or more of an advantage than dopers have vs non-dopers. 

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Until the particular women who are involved band among themselves to raise the volume on this issue (perhaps, they already have?) and qualify reasons as to why this is problematic, there is no reason why you, I, or anybody here needs to feel this is an injustice or threatening in any sense.

Illogical. Your point amounts to the rationale that Stockholm sydrome can never be abusive, since the victim is not a victim in their own mind but an accessory. If i can convince the person i am scamming, that they arnt scammed but doing a great deed, no fraud has been committed and the crown can just eff-off, right ? 

 

[canuckistani]

4 hours ago, inane said:

Just really sad that you think fighting made you a man. Counseling time lol

Explain why a behavior that has been defining element of species homo sapiens for the dominant majority - competing and fighting, with highest amount of lethal force applied in intra-species competition in kingdom animalia, for the last 300,000 years of existence of this species, is something 'requiring of counselling'. 

 

Aggression, violence, etc. are justified response to our species. Society has a right to set the rules of engagement towards said violence & aggression - be it me breaking your arm chasing a ball or me punching you in the face in a square platform till you pass out, killing you because you took my property or killing you in an arena wearing animal feathers in the helmet to claps and roars of thousands. You however, do not have the right, nor the premise to dismiss said dominant behavior as 'abhorrent' or 'undesirable' to a species defined by said behavior. 

[BananaMash]

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

It doesn't.

 

Assuming we are talking about the same type of scholarships (post-secondary, post-graduate, athletic-based, etc), I would say - and I have no evidence or literature to back this up - that I'm fairly certain no person between the ages of 14 - 25 (roughly, the 'typical' school age range) is transitioning for any reason that is separate from their own body/gender/sex dysmorphia.

 

Until the particular women who are involved band among themselves to raise the volume on this issue (perhaps, they already have?) and qualify reasons as to why this is problematic, there is no reason why you, I, or anybody here needs to feel this is an injustice or threatening in any sense.

 

Again, we shouldn't form slopes when there aren't any.

 

The most discourse you're going to get in regard to women feeling "negatively impacted" by trans-women in any context is from the trans-exclusionary feminists, and those conversations are going to be little more than thinly-veiled transphobia masqueraded behind problems that don't really exist. Which is honestly how a lot of this thread feels too.

 

There's definitely interesting discussion to be had in regard to this, but the way it's being presented is shameful. I understand the idea of a genetic advantage in sports, but the grey area is being totally ignored due to misunderstanding of transition. In North America most hormone replacement therapies are a combination of spironolactone (to block testosterone) and estrogen. It changes the body to an astounding degree, and one of the biggest side effects for most people is massive losses in strength, muscle mass, and endurance. When you no longer have the hormonal makeup of a male, is that genetic advantage gone? I can't answer that question, but I can say it's far different than men pretending to be girls.

 

It's disheartening to see people buy into the idea that this is a huge issue. It's a discussion to be had, and most trans-women would probably tell you the same thing. I have a couple of very close friends who are trans, and they understand more than anybody that their social place and ability to participate in certain things is still foggy. They're not trying to "invade" anybody, they just want to live their life as happily as possible and have people actually work with them in terms of acceptance/finding where they fit instead of being met with rejection and scorn everywhere.

[Alflives]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think it could certainly be unfair. But no this isn't a slippery slope straight to hell or all of female sport being ruined. Its an issue that I'm sure can be worked out.

 

There's an interesting thing going on right now with a female South African track star, she's born female biologically, but she has very high testosterone. So the IOC has decided that she has to chemically reduce her testosterone levels to continue to compete. Doesn't that seem silly as well? https://www.wired.com/story/caster-semenya-and-the-twisted-politics-of-testosterone/

 

She's just naturally the way she is and has a supposed advantage. Just like Phelps had with his unusually low lactic acid production, apparently he only produces 1/2 of what other swimmers do giving him a massive advantage. So why didn't they chemically up Phelps lactic acid production? 

 

I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know taking this debate to a place where people even question someone's nature is wrong. These folks exist, they're part of the human spectrum, and they have rights. But so does everyone else. Its not easy. 

 

What you’re born with is you.  Great athletes are gifted.  That’s why they’re great.  Trying to level the playing field sounds too much like “Harrison Bergeron”.  

However, people having surgery, and taking chemicals to alter their birth biology need to be categorized in a different way for sports.  How close are we to a “Six Million Dollar Man” or “Bionic Woman”?

Maybe, for sports, the answer is easy?  What ever gifts or advantages you’re born with are how you compete?  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ReggieBush said:

There is no edit notification. Don't lie to me. You played the victim.

What am i victim of? I don’t think you, or twiddledee, know what that word means. 

 

I edited my post Einstein. I’m sure even you can catch on to that. 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Guest

[BananaMash]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

What you’re born with is you.  Great athletes are gifted.  That’s why they’re great.  Trying to level the playing field sounds too much like “Harrison Bergeron”.  

However, people having surgery, and taking chemicals to alter their birth biology need to be categorized in a different way for sports.  How close are we to a “Six Million Dollar Man” or “Bionic Woman”?

Maybe, for sports, the answer is easy?  What ever gifts or advantages you’re born with are how you compete?  

Not even remotely close in the slightest, to be honest.

 

Medical transition simply doesn't work that way. It's extremely closely monitored. For example, an individual transitioning from female to male will be monitored by doctors to be sure that hormone levels are falling within standard ranges for males.

 

The genetic advantage argument only really has any ground when it comes to pre-transition individuals identifying as the other gender without having begun hormone replacement therapy (and gender reassignment surgery really doesn't play into it as much as you'd think). But, splitting pre-medical transition and successfully medically transitioned individuals is another slippery slope discussion that I can't pretend to have enough knowledge on to really talk about. Too many different social connotations that I don't understand, as I'm not trans myself.

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

The world is changing and there are kinks to obviously be worked out.

 

On the one hand we, as women, strive for equality.  So is this just part of the other side of that?  

 

I do agree that any exploitation of competition that has people gain an advantage will need to be monitored and addressed.   But if someone fully commits to becoming the sex they know they were born as, despite their make up, then all the power to them.  Enjoy reaping the rewards of recognizing who you are and continue to shine in that light.  That's my take.

 

But it's definitely an easy fix with a "new" category.  Done.

This is where i find cultural differences are decisive and makes this whole trans aspect just a matter of culture. 

In many cultures, the word for gender and the word for sex are the same damn thing. Females are women and males are men. Not as a matter of social construct, but language construct. And in many such cultures, a third category is created, where its the umbrella category for all the people who do not identify with their gender/sex, as well as the intersex. 

In my view, i see THAT as the true liberation of trans or intersex: celebrate what you are and never be told that you are any less because of your difference. A trans-woman is not a woman, a trans-woman is a trans-person. Same with trans-men. Shoe-horning into the 'men' 'women' category may work in languages that are ambiguous about the terms of gender and sex, but it won't work in languages that do not have such distintion. Nor should it. A cis-gendered woman and a trans-gender woman are DIFFERENT.  The trans-gender ones acknowledge this tacitly, as they definitively do not identify with the term 'cis-gendered'. 

If English or most European languages were not crappy enough to have different gender and different sex terms, trans people could actually just own and rock the term 'trans', without having a language battle, nor require the superfluous and unnecessary terms like 'cis'. 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, BananaMash said:

Not even remotely close in the slightest, to be honest.

 

Medical transition simply doesn't work that way. It's extremely closely monitored. For example, an individual transitioning from female to male will be monitored by doctors to be sure that hormone levels are falling within standard ranges for males.

 

The genetic advantage argument only really has any ground when it comes to pre-transition individuals identifying as the other gender without having begun hormone replacement therapy (and gender reassignment surgery really doesn't play into it as much as you'd think). But, splitting pre-medical transition and successfully medically transitioned individuals is another slippery slope discussion that I can't pretend to have enough knowledge on to really talk about. Too many different social connotations that I don't understand, as I'm not trans myself.

Good information BM.  

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

This is where i find cultural differences are decisive and makes this whole trans aspect just a matter of culture. 

In many cultures, the word for gender and the word for sex are the same damn thing. Females are women and males are men. Not as a matter of social construct, but language construct. And in many such cultures, a third category is created, where its the umbrella category for all the people who do not identify with their gender/sex, as well as the intersex. 

In my view, i see THAT as the true liberation of trans or intersex: celebrate what you are and never be told that you are any less because of your difference. A trans-woman is not a woman, a trans-woman is a trans-person. Same with trans-men. Shoe-horning into the 'men' 'women' category may work in languages that are ambiguous about the terms of gender and sex, but it won't work in languages that do not have such distintion. Nor should it. A cis-gendered woman and a trans-gender woman are DIFFERENT.  The trans-gender ones acknowledge this tacitly, as they definitively do not identify with the term 'cis-gendered'. 

If English or most European languages were not crappy enough to have different gender and different sex terms, trans people could actually just own and rock the term 'trans', without having a language battle, nor require the superfluous and unnecessary terms like 'cis'. 

 

Inuit have 23 different words for snow.