Current Events > Biden sparks TERF war on twitter with gender discrimination order

(+) Yeah! (+)

CyricZ posted...

This is literal extortion. "Be nice to us or we'll elect another fascist. Be a shame if something happened to your democracy."

No. Its called living in reality and acknowledging living in a country full of actual ignorant bigots and religious zealots.

So fine, let's allow it. But what will be the response *IF* trans women suddenly dominate all sports they participate in?


---

CyricZ posted...

This is literal extortion. "Be nice to us or we'll elect another fascist. Be a shame if something happened to your democracy."

Yes but it's also insanely reductive and unhelpful for people to take a "if you have any point of contention on this issue you're a terf and a bigot and there's no room for discussion". This is a topic sports scientists, legal experts and sports governing body aren't anywhere near agreed on but somehow social academics have a clearcut answer that requires no further consideration? That should be a clue to anyone that maybe it's not as simple as "you're a bigot or you're not a bigot".

---

https://youtu.be/URz-RYEOaig

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Biologically I agree

Gender I'm with the SJWs. That's a social construct

If a someone born in a biologically male body believes that they are a woman trapped in a male body, I don't see what's wrong with that and they deserve equal rights in law and business and employment and insurance etc.

But the fact remains they have a biologically male body, even if they are a transgender woman. No hormone therapy is going to change that they have an unfair biological advantage

The fact people with a straight face keep pointing out how few transgenders there are while handwaving how many casually squash female sporting records with ease is also textbook doublethink

Except there is no definitive proof that a transfemale will fare better or is more athletic than a ciswoman.

---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

No. Its called living in reality and acknowledging living in a country full of actual ignorant bigots and religious zealots.

So fine, let's allow it. But what will be the response *IF* trans women suddenly dominate all sports they participate in?

I'd say if white supremacists and religious zealots are willing to go to fascism over sports then that's their problem, not ours.

We didn't resolve school segregation by telling black children we couldn't desegregate for their own safety. We did it anyway and gave them police protection, and fuck the bigots.

To put it simply, don't negotiate with terrorists.

And don't make policy assuming a fantasy worst-case scenario will happen. We've had trans women in sports for decades and they still haven't overthrown cis women like everyone seems afraid will happen.

---

CyricZ posted...

This is literal extortion. "Be nice to us or we'll elect another fascist. Be a shame if something happened to your democracy."

I think it's less "do what we say or else" extortion and more "When you deny blatant facts like a crazy person you make the other crazy people look less crazy "

Users like Shock and Gunplay and the others make Qannon look less insane by comparison.

They may be saying utter nonsense about pizza parlours but at least they won't deny basic facts like pizza parlours exist.

I think a lot of those 70 million folks who voted for Trump were inspired to believe the claptrap because they saw so many people believing anything they wanted that they didnt see the problem

Honestly I think the societal defense and refusal to challenge religion is what led to Trump. Tell people "reality doesn't matter, believe whatever you want for decades" and this is what you get

No matter what "side " you're on , you have to accept blatant facts, even if they are inconvenient or undesirable.

Basic facts about biology are not a partisan issue

Soneone born into a male body cannot ever be pregnant.
Someone born into a male body will have physical advantages over one born in a female body

You can't just ignore that because you don't like it, that's utter madness

You can (and should) accept that and still call for equal rights in law and business and insurance and employment etc

But not womens sports. You can't pretend to be blind. When you do, you just empower the bigots by making yourself look crazy

---

Also I've had UR on block for years so I don't give a shit about what his ass is saying, but if he's anything now like he was back then, his entire schtick is being a shit disturber so I have no sympathy for him getting called names.

---

CyricZ posted...

Also I've had UR on block for years so I don't give a shit about what his ass is saying, but if he's anything now like he was back then, his entire schtick is being a shit disturber so I have no sympathy for him getting called names.

This is also true

Dude lives just to stir the pot, it's pathetic

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Except there is no definitive proof that a transfemale will fare better or is more athletic than a ciswoman.

https://youtu.be/9eJKsNRRT-4

---

WashYourHands posted...

https://youtu.be/9eJKsNRRT-4

Daily Caller...hmmmmmmmmmmm
no thanks.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Except there is no definitive proof that a transfemale will fare better or is more athletic than a ciswoman.

Except there is

UnfairRepresent posted...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 1050% performance advantage, is lacking.

Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.

These data significantly undermine the delivery of fairness and safety presumed by the criteria set out in transgender inclusion policies, particularly given the stated prioritization of fairness as an overriding objective (for the IOC).

If those policies are intended to preserve fairness, inclusion and the safety of biologically female athletes, sporting organizations may need to reassess their policies regarding inclusion of transgender women.

Why do you think not 1 female athlete can make it in the NFL , MLB, NBA etc?

Biology sucks

The science is indisputable

Again we barely have any transgender athletes and yet transgender girls are breaking womens world records with ease.

Mary Shepard was a 38th percentile Male body builder, above average but not impressive

After transitioning with hormone therapy she broke womens records and became one of the best female bodybuilders in the world

You can't ignore this because you do not like it

Body mass, muscle, bone density etc doesnt go away, hormone therapy isn't an equalizer

This is like denying climate change. You can't do it just because you don't want it to be true

I don't want it to be true either, but it is true. We have to live with that

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Daily Caller...hmmmmmmmmmmm
no thanks.

Id just thought youd like to listen to someone that has experience competing in this topics situation, but I guess not

---

WashYourHands posted...

Id just thought youd like to listen to someone that has experience competing in this topics situation, but I guess not

Dude you think South Park is a viable source. Don't nobody need to entertain you.

---

@InhumaneRaider

It should be noted that the main problem with the science behind this topic is lack of study material more than anything else. Nobody questions the rationale the role of T in performance anymore than they question the role of anaebolic steroids in performance, but what we don't have are really many top quality trans athletes in many sports to study to get good data.

No kidding the main source of research that people often cite in these discussion for how transwomen perform similarly to ciswomen is from a study purely on endurance running of 8 trans athletes. That's it. |The researcher spent 7 years trying to get this data because the participants are so hard to find. Also folk neglect to mention that the same researcher - a trans scientist runner - also has a nuanced view of this topic, and freely admits the physiological differences. But her argument was simply about how much HRT and for how long does it take for a transwomen to be on a similar level in running?

---

I support Biden and trans people with this. Feminists have been infiltrating boy's clubs for years so now they can deal with it and learn some acceptance.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Except there is

The science is indisputable

Again we barely have any transgender athletes and yet transgender girls are breaking womens world records with ease.

Mary Shepard was a 38th percentile Male body builder, above average but not impressive

After transitioning with hormone therapy she broke womens records and became one of the best female bodybuilders in the world

You can't ignore this because you do not like it

Body mass, muscle, bone density etc doesnt go away, hormone therapy isn't an equalizer

This is like denying climate change. You can't do it just because you don't want it to be true

I don't want it to be true either, but it is true. We have to live with that

That. Is. Still. Not. Definitive. Proof.

It's not a generalized study and it's focusing on one aspect, and even then, this isn't applied to all cases. Besides, have you actually talked to any trans athletes? Talk to some on proper HRT and then talk to them about how their muscle mass reduces significantly.

---

pinky0926 posted...

@InhumaneRaider

It should be noted that the main problem with the science behind this topic is lack of study material more than anything else. Nobody questions the rationale the role of T in performance anymore than they question the role of anaebolic steroids in performance, but what we don't have are really many top quality trans athletes in many sports to study to get good data.

No kidding the main source of research that people often cite in these discussion for how transwomen perform similarly to ciswomen is from a study purely on endurance running of 8 trans athletes. That's it. |The researcher spent 7 years trying to get this data because the participants are so hard to find. Also folk neglect to mention that the same researcher - a trans scientist runner - also has a nuanced view of this topic, and freely admits the physiological differences. But her argument was simply about how much HRT and for how long does it take for a transwomen to be on a similar level in running?

This isn't the defense you think it is

the research we have shows the basic buological reality that Male bodies have physical advantages. I dunno why you keep ignoring it. Well actually I did know why but I wish you wouldn't

and trans athletes are breaking female records with ease. You going "But theres so few of them" in response to this is doublethink , the fact there are so few yet that tiny few us trouncing records says it all about the unfair advantage.

Kolibri X posted...

I support Biden and trans people with this. Feminists have been infiltrating boy's clubs for years so now they can deal with it and learn some acceptance.

wat

---

pinky0926 posted...

@InhumaneRaider

It should be noted that the main problem with the science behind this topic is lack of study material more than anything else. Nobody questions the rationale the role of T in performance anymore than they question the role of anaebolic steroids in performance, but what we don't have are really many top quality trans athletes in many sports to study to get good data.

No kidding the main source of research that people often cite in these discussion for how transwomen perform similarly to ciswomen is from a study purely on endurance running of 8 trans athletes. That's it. |The researcher spent 7 years trying to get this data because the participants are so hard to find. Also folk neglect to mention that the same researcher - a trans scientist runner - also has a nuanced view of this topic, and freely admits the physiological differences. But her argument was simply about how much HRT and for how long does it take for a transwomen to be on a similar level in running?

Oh, I know and that's why most studies state that there are several areas of current and future research required to improve knowledge of transgender peoples experiences in sport, such as informing on the development of more inclusive sport policies, and most importantly, enhancing the lives of transgender people, both physically and psychosocially.

It's also hilarious this only makes waves when a trans athlete places in the top of their respective sports category, yet you'll never hear the headline for "trans athlete places 59th in 157 person race"

---

CyricZ posted...

Dude you think South Park is a viable source. Don't nobody need to entertain you.

Lol, yes post 254 was just for giggles. But we are talking about the video in post 260, keep up!

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

That. Is. Still. Not. Definitive. Proof.

Yes it Is. The make body being physically superior in strength, size and power has been proven

Transition (which a lot of people aren't even considering to be a requirement) does not undo that advantage

the case Is closed

Besides, have you actually talked to any trans athletes? Talk to some on proper HRT and then talk to them about how their muscle mass reduces significantly.

Yes I have. And yes their muscle mass reduces but not on par with being a biological female body. They still have an advantage

Why are you pretending not to be capable of understanding that?


---

WashYourHands posted...

Lol, yes post 254 was just for giggles. But we are talking about the video in post 260, keep up!

Honestly how am I supposed to figure which is the trolling you and which is the serious you. You can't have it both ways, chief.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes it Is. The make body being physically superior in strength, size and power has been proven

Transition (which a lot of people aren't even considering to be a requirement) does not undo that advantage

the case Is closed

No. it's not. There are individual cases of Transwomen not being physically superior, what then? That's not how definitive proof works, you clearly don't understand how this works.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes I have. And yes their muscle mass reduces but not on par with being a biological female body. They still have an advantage

You clearly haven't then.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Oh, I know and that's why most studies state that there are several areas of current and future research required to improve knowledge of transgender peoples experiences in sport, such as informing on the development of more inclusive sport policies, and most importantly, enhancing the lives of transgender people, both physically and psychosocially.

I wonder how people would feel about a trans league or something? I guess it would require enough participants, but would that be a problem if there were enough? I realise on the face of it that's still a form of exclusion, but I would point to how the paralympics manages this problem. They have so many different competitive categories for different levels of ability, even with the same type of disability. And I don't think the paralympics is trying to make a statement about how one person is more of a person than another when it does so.

It's also hilarious this only makes waves when a trans athlete places in the top of their respective sports category, yet you'll never hear the headline for "trans athlete places 59th in 157 person race"

And yes it's true - hypothetically if a trans athlete's performance dropped so much after transitioning that she went down some ranks in terms of comparative performance no one would bat an eye. It's an unfortunate topic because it's coloured so politically, and there is scope for real harm.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

It's also hilarious this only makes waves when a trans athlete places in the top of their respective sports category, yet you'll never hear the headline for "trans athlete places 59th in 157 person race"

*headdesk*

No one is saying a transgender athlete will always beat a biological woman no matter what. The Venus sisters could beat anyone on CE at Tennis

The point is that people with Male bodies will have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE over people born with female ones

A girl coming middle of the road in a race one time doesn't undo that advantage

Are you seriously, seriously, seriously pretending that you do not comprehend this incredibly simple thing?

",Well a trans girl didnt win a race one time" is such an embarrassing point that it boggles the mind

---

pinky0926 posted...

I wonder how people would feel about a trans league or something? I guess it would require enough participants, but would that be a problem if there were enough? I realise on the face of it that's still a form of exclusion, but I would point to how the paralympics manages this problem. They have so many different competitive categories for different levels of ability, even with the same type of disability. And I don't think the paralympics is trying to make a statement about how one person is more of a person than another when it does so.

The thing is, moves like this, allowing trans individuals to compete in these gendered sports, would give people the evidence they need to support their arguments, and that's one or the other, "yes trans people have an advantage" or "no, they don't".

People arguing biological differences are unknowingly making an argument that a certain group of people should be excluded from a certain sport, because they're "faster".

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

No. it's not. There are individual cases of Transwomen not being physically superior, what then?

oh Jesus H Christ fuck me

You really are pretending that you don't understand this.

Their bodies do have a physically superior advantage, having an advantage doesnt mean you always win

If the Seahawks were allow 3 more players than the other team they still wouldn't win by default, but they would have an unfair advantage

If someone makes the claim that "aliens live in wardrobes " and opens 3 separate wardrobes to find aliens living inside, you opening a 4th and no alien being inside doesn't invalidate his claim, his claim is still true

Not every transgender weightlifter will be Mary but some will and that will completely total the sport when every record is shattered and competition is unfair

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

*headdesk*

No one is saying a transgender athlete will always beat a biological woman no matter what. The Venus sisters could beat anyone on CE at Tennis

The point is that people with Male bodies will have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE over people born with female ones

A girl coming middle of the road in a race one time doesn't undo that advantage

Are you seriously, seriously, seriously pretending that you do not comprehend this incredibly simple thing?

",Well a trans girl didnt win a race one time" is such an embarrassing point that it boggles the mind

Yeah, now you're just pivoting.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

People arguing biological differences are unknowingly making an argument that a certain group of people should be excluded from a certain sport, because they're "faster".

That's literally the reason womens sports exists In the first place

You do know "Male" sports aren't segregated right? It's just no women can compete . There is noting forbidding women from playing in the NFL, they just cannot compete due to biological physical inferiority.

Only womens divisions are exclusive and they exclude biological men because they are faster.

People know full well that's what they are arguing for, that's literally the point

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

The thing is, moves like this, allowing trans individuals to compete in these gendered sports, would give people the evidence they need to support their arguments, and that's one or the other, "yes trans people have an advantage" or "no, they don't".

People arguing biological differences are unknowingly making an argument that a certain group of people should be excluded from a certain sport, because they're "faster".

But then what? That's my question. Like if the current rationale for male/female categories is based on a presumed biological difference (and therefore about sex), but who is actually determined for what category is on the basis of identity (therefore gender), we surely undermine the point of having the categories at all in the first place? We're basically saying "the reasons for this category are to do with sex, but how we pick a person for the category is determined on gender". It doesn't follow.

I'm not scared of a hypothetical future where trans athletes dominate womens sport (i think that's largely unlikely), but I do think the rationale for even having gendered sport is eroding, and we might get to a point where we can't defend it at all. And then what? Males and females competing in the same arena? It would be a bloody massacre. Good bye to all women (cis and trans) in sports forever, in that outcome.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

oh Jesus H Christ fuck me

You really are pretending that you don't understand this.

Their bodies do have a physically superior advantage, having an advantage doesnt mean you always win

If the Seahawks were allow 3 more players than the other team they still wouldn't win by default, but they would have an unfair advantage

If someone makes the claim that "aliens live in wardrobes " and opens 3 separate wardrobes to find aliens living inside, you opening a 4th and no alien being inside doesn't invalidate his claim, his claim is still true

Not every transgender weightlifter will be Mary but some will and that will completely total the sport when every record is shattered and competition is unfair

That's not a fucking argument. That's what you don't understand. As I said, you're just pivoting. There is no definitive proof, no conclusive research, no empirical evidence, that transwomen have an "unfair" advantage over ciswomen, you're not presenting anything definitive, other than some semantic stopsigns.

As I said, it's a case by case basis, it's not a generalization. That's what you don't understand.

---

pinky0926 posted...

We're basically saying "the reasons for this category are to do with sex, but how we pick a person for the category is determined on gender". It doesn't follow.

Exactly

pinky0926 posted...

, but I do think the rationale for even having gendered sport is eroding, and we might get to a point where we can't defend it at all. And then what? Males and females competing in the same arena?

That "point " is right now dude

"male" sports have nothing in the rules banning women from play, women have had try outs for the NFL and NBA.

They just cannot compete . Theres noting stopping from "competing in the same arena " except biology

womens segregated sports exist because without that segregation there would be no womens sports

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

There is no definitive proof, no conclusive research, no empirical evidence, that transwomen have an "unfair" advantage

Yes there is.

Several users in this topic alone have repeatedly posted it and you ignore it

You just keep lying

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

People know full well that's what they are arguing for, that's literally the point

No you don't. Because you're making exclusionary arguments that can be applied to other topics, such as biological differences in a certain group of people, making them "faster", as I've already said. That's literally how you sound.

pinky0926 posted...

But then what? That's my question. Like if the current rationale for male/female categories is based on a presumed biological difference (and therefore about sex), but who is actually determined for what category is on the basis of identity (therefore gender), we surely undermine the point of having the categories at all in the first place? We're basically saying "the reasons for this category are to do with sex, but how we pick a person for the category is determined on gender". It doesn't follow.

I'm not scared of a hypothetical future where trans athletes dominate sport (i think that's largely unlikely), but I do think the rationale for even having gendered sport is eroding, and we might get to a point where we can't defend it at all. And then what? Males and females competing in the same arena? It would be a bloody massacre. Good bye to all women (cis and trans) in sports forever, in that outcome.

I'm just saying, it would then provide the evidence that folks need to support their arguments. We see that Black people constantly dominate running sports, but for some reason, people aren't arguing to exclude them from that sport.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes there is.

Several users in this topic alone have repeatedly posted it and you ignore it

You just keep lying

Yet there is research that states the opposite, you can't call it definitive if there is opposition. That's not how it works.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

I'm just saying, it would then provide the evidence that folks need to support their arguments. We see that Black people constantly dominate running sports, but for some reason, people aren't arguing to exclude them from that sport.

I think it's because black anatomy doesn't give them an advantage as say someone who takes anabolics/androgens. I think the barometer is like 1%. As he is saying though, if you go this route it leads to the elimination of women's sports

---

Oh jesus christ you're literally trying to claim black people vs white people is the same thing as men vs women?

Lets Play a game

Go look up the NFL, MLB, MMA, Swimming etc.

Go look up the top players/teams

Is every single one black?

Now is every single one male?

Skin color is not comparable to tour muscle mass, bone density, size, hormones etc..

This is a comically ludicrous reach to try to pretend not allowing biological males to compete against biological women is on par with racial segregation

Hell the sheer fact no one has an issue with transgender men playing against biological men alone disproves this insane fact

---

Fat percentage, fat distribution, muscle density, muscle mass, bone density and hemoglobin content in transwomen after treatment with HRT are all in line with the typical levels for those seen in cisgender women

https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0041/ea0041EP397
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27572683
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28945851
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen.13607
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004563215587763
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00896-6/abstract

Age graded race performance statistics among transwomen are equal to those of cis gender women
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6a/bd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a.pdf?_ga=2.254440527.659551599.1550520323-1192624875.1550520323

A meta-analyisis of research into transwomen's performance across a comprehensive range of sports found "Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y

---

MEN have an advantage over women. As stated earlier, look at the statistics regarding track & field -- the most unambiguous sport out there, where times and distances can easily be compared. The top women in the sport, ever, cannot compete with decent high school boys. There are 17-yr-old boys who train only 35 miles per week, take the weekends off, and pay no mind to nutrition who would crush world-class female Olympians. The same type of thing holds true for sport in general, across multiple disciplines. There is a biological difference between the sexes, and it's reflected clearly in sport performance.

Allowing men to simply "identify as women" and enter the realm of female sports is inherently unfair, and a huge blow to the women who have fought for decades to have sporting spaces of their own.

It really comes down to an issue of entitlement. All people should be free to "play sports" broadly speaking -- trans individuals included. But should sporting leagues be obligated to accept those with XY chromosomes into female leagues? No, and they should not do so.

InhumaneRaider posted...

Yet there is research that states the opposit

1. no there isn't
2. You only need to prove the unfair advantage once to prove the unfair advantage

Why are you pretending not to understand this?

---

To the people asking about trans men and how they fare, I believe the reason why they don't come up in these discussions is kinda simple. Please note this is just me pulling stuff out of my posterior, and I am sure someone will come in and correct me in a polite manner. Or I'll get yelled at, one of the two.

Most trans men are likely going to have the same... physical 'disadvantages' - you know, the ones that people bring up when arguing why trans women shouldn't compete against cis women, like bone density, muscle mass, lung capacity, etc - that a cis woman might have when it comes to competing against cis men. And while hormone therapy and transitioning can obviously make up the difference in some of those areas, it won't even things out completely. That's probably why they rarely, if ever, get brought up in these discussions; they exist and may be competing, but they're not making the same kind of "impact" that a trans woman might make competing against cis women, such as the weightlifter Unfair keeps bringing up (Mary Gregory), or all those stories that came out in... I believe 2019 about those cis girls who were upset about being obliterated by trans girls in high school track.

That said, I'm certain that there are exceptional trans male athletes out there right now, and I'm pretty sure if a trans man comes around and starts to shatter the records of... I dunno, Wayne Gretzky or LeBron James, they'll start to get plenty of crap from people. But the focus is more on cis women competing with trans women for various reasons already discussed in this thread.

---

People arguing biological differences are unknowingly making an argument that a certain group of people should be excluded from a certain sport, because they're "faster".

Also as for this bit, I'm very aware but I think it's a question of 1) how much "faster" are we talking here and 2) is there a class to conceivably protect?

Like yes, I'm aware of the parallels. We don't have a short person's basketball league even though being tall is clearly a huge advantage in basketball. We don't have a long torso/short leg swimmers league even though that's an advantage, and so on. But I think these comparisons are both qualitatively and quantitively different.

For example, we do have a lightweight fighters division, because at some point someone decided that they want to see small guys who are skilled also have a chance at winning. And we might argue that we should have a short person's basketball league, if enough people thought it was a worthy enough thing to vouch for. In each of these cases we'd recognise that 1) there is a huge advantage to being heavy or being tall in these respective sports and 2) we want to see the small and short guys have a shot.

So to draw that parallel to women in sport, we are presumably recognising that 1) having ordinary male sex development is a huge advantage in sport and 2) we want to see an arena where people without this advantage can compete.

Quantatively, I think it's very different. Like the difference between a short basketball player and a tall one (all else being equal) is going to be a lot more marginal than the difference between a male and female athlete in almost any sport (all else being equal). To throw some numbers out, it's about a 10% difference in track sports and 50% difference in strength sports. That's absolutely colossal.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Skin color is not comparable to tour muscle mass, bone density, size, hormones etc..

But genetics are

Black people are more likely to produce people who have higher bone density and muscle mass. Also higher ratio of limb length to torso length which leads to a higher ratio in Area to volume.

Like I said not so much where it is considered an unfair advantage. There are non black people who have these body types

---

Quick reminder folks. If you're looking to prove that trans women will always beat cis women, don't use statistics of cis men to try to back that up. Trans women and cis men are not the same thing, and I wish I didn't need to keep reminding people of this.

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

I think it's because black anatomy doesn't give them an advantage as say someone who takes anabolics/androgens. I think the barometer is like 1%. As he is saying though, if you go this route it leads to the elimination of women's sports

They're still dominating running sports and that's basically the argument for trans individuals, is that they'll dominate their respective sport due to "biological differences", which some claim in the reasoning for Black people dominating that specific sport.

And not really, what it would do is look at a revision of policies regarding trans sports. But this issue only crops up once every blue moon when a trans individual places top in a respective sport.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Oh jesus christ you're literally trying to claim black people vs white people is the same thing as men vs women?

Your exclusionary arguments can literally be applied to these circumstances. But all you know how to do is pivot.

---

pinky0926 posted...

Like yes, I'm aware of the parallels. We don't have a short person's basketball league even though being tall is clearly a huge advantage in basketball. We don't have a long torso/short leg swimmers league even though that's an advantage, and so on. But I think these comparisons are both qualitatively and quantitively different.

As you said, nothing is stopping anyone from making their own leagues

there are tons of "over 65" sports leagues

but you can't enter a 22 year old who identifies as an 80 year old into one. That's not fair.

I dont think anyone (Sane) would have an an issue with a separate league for transgender women. The issue is that they have an unfair advantage over biological women

---

CyricZ posted...

folks. If you're looking to prove that trans women will always beat cis women

no one is looking to prove that

Just that they have an unfair advantage, which has already been proven

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

1. no there isn't
2. You only need to prove the unfair advantage once to prove the unfair advantage

Why are you pretending not to understand this?

...

I'm done arguing with you.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Your exclusionary arguments can literally be applied to these circumstances

No it can't

Why is lying the only thing you can do?

It's really hard to talk to you.

"Well if you claim men are stronger than women, that's like claiming black people are stronger than white!!!!" is a non sequitur to end non sequiturs

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

...

I'm done arguing with you.

You never even did argue with me. You just ignored everything I and everyone said and then spouted utter nonsense

You're going to give the TERFs all the ammunition they need to be doucebags

---

pinky0926 posted...

Also as for this bit, I'm very aware but I think it's a question of 1) how much "faster" are we talking here and 2) is there a class to conceivably protect?

Like yes, I'm aware of the parallels. We don't have a short person's basketball league even though being tall is clearly a huge advantage in basketball. We don't have a long torso/short leg swimmers league even though that's an advantage, and so on. But I think these comparisons are both qualitatively and quantitively different.

For example, we do have a lightweight fighters division, because at some point someone decided that they want to see small guys who are skilled also have a chance at winning. And we might argue that we should have a short person's basketball league, if enough people thought it was a worthy enough thing to vouch for. In each of these cases we'd recognise that 1) there is a huge advantage to being heavy or being tall in these respective sports and 2) we want to see the small and short guys have a shot.

So to draw that parallel to women in sport, we are presumably recognising that 1) having ordinary male sex development is a huge advantage in sport and 2) we want to see an arena where people without this advantage can compete.

Quantatively, I think it's very different. Like the difference between a short basketball player and a tall one (all else being equal) is going to be a lot more marginal than the difference between a male and female athlete in almost any sport (all else being equal). To throw some numbers out, it's about a 10% difference in track sports and 50% difference in strength sports. That's absolutely colossal.

Essentially what is happening is that Black people dominate running sports and most would argue that there are genetic differences, however there's no definitive proof of this. If the argument is dominance in sports and excluding them, then the same can be made for Black people.

What the inclusion of trans people in these "gendered" sports allows for is research and evidence-based studies that will allow for some revision to policies surrounding trans people in sports.

---