Roided Up "Boy" Wins Girls' State Wrestling Championship

[BobTheCoward]

And yet you were the one that rejected it previously, despite it not even being something that affects you in the slightest.

I didn't personally reject it. I didn't answer if I agreed or disagreed with the assumptions you based your argument on. I only pointed out that it wasn't a given.

 

[Planigale]

Still not fair, because it's not about skill but about physics, apparently. A boy who has more muscle than another boy has an unfair advantage. A boy who has more testosterone has an advantage. A centimeter more in height, a gram more in weight...it's all unfair advantages. The only truly fair way to compete in sport would be to match up only those individuals who are exactly alike in every way, down to the molecular level. Because fairness!

In boxing and other combat sports this is recognised by having weight limits. As someone who is petite in all senses I have always felt that athletics should height band. There should be the hobbit height hundred metres / long jump etc. Just as there is the bantam weight in boxing. The British olympic team put in an advert which essentially said if you are tall and sporty you can be an olympic contender (the truth of this is in one who responded to the advert won a gold medal), most sports are heightist.

So may be rather than sex divide one should testosterone band.

 

[quadraginta]

Pretty much.

I was responding to a post which clearly suggested that the simple act of using a hormone supplement was enough to confer an unfair advantage.

It isn't. Many other factors are involved.

Yes, it is.

Women Cyclist Tammy Thomas also disagrees with you. Here she is in 2008.

Are you claiming that all she ever did was take some testosterone and suddenly she was a world class cyclist.

I suspect there were other factors involved. Like training.

Hormones alone are not a magic potion that confers athletic superiority.

Did she compete against the men?

If not then I think you are missing (Ignoring?) the point I am making.

If her hormone levels were significantly higher than normal for a biological female then she should not have been permitted to compete with the women. I don't have a problem with that.

If he was a trans-male competing with the men and his hormone levels were normal for a male then I don't have a problem with that either.

 

[quadraginta]

Puberty betrayed me by revealing I'm an awkward, unathletic, loser. Where was my testosterone?

<snip>

Inside you. It takes more than normal hormone levels to make an athlete.

 

[Planigale]

I would dispute that. Males who need testosterone for other medical reasons aren't allowed to take it and compete - why is that if it gives an athlete no advantage? Only female to male transgendered athletes are exempt from that rule, which I would say makes the playing field uneven against the boys.

Is that true? Hormones for replacement are allowed. Checking the olympic regulations if there is a clear medical reason e.g. pituitary failure it would be allowed.

 

[quadraginta]

No it doesn't and the medical profession agrees that it should be done before puberty when possible, which is why the current treatment for Transgender children is to halt puberty until the person is ready to decide which gender they want their body to be.

For one, it supposes medical professionals should be the arbiters of whether we should treat or not.

It does nothing of the sort. Which was made clear in the very post which you quoted and avoided understanding.

The medical profession advises. It is up to the patient to make the decision.

That's why minor children are given a chance to put off the decision until they are old enough to understand the implications themselves, instead of having some adult ... or their body ... make those decisions for them.

You are complaining about the very thing you are advocating.

 

[quadraginta]

I didn't say that about professionals. I said allowing them to be arbiters supposes certain assumptions. One can agree they know best but still reject the professional opinion.

And often do.

Are you using some idiosyncratic definition of "arbiter" which is not shared by the general public?

I've had a lot more medical treatment than I would have preferred. In ALL cases I was asked if I wanted that treatment or not. Nobody ever forced any treatment on any of my children either.

Sure, there are exceptions to that, when the patient is unable to give consent and no responsible guardian or relative is available to do it for them. But in any normal instance the patient is not compelled to receive any treatment. And if they are unsure of the doctor's advice they are free to seek alternative opinions.

Which they may also accept or not as they choose.

 

[quadraginta]

Is that true? Hormones for replacement are allowed. Checking the olympic regulations if there is a clear medical reason e.g. pituitary failure it would be allowed.

Apparently this should be verboten.

No excuses. If someone's body let them down like that they have no business wanting to compete with "normal" people.

Even if their condition can be treated to be brought up to "normal".

Tough titties. They're just **** out of luck.

As has been pointed out, "fair" has nothing to do with it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It does nothing of the sort. Which was made clear in the very post which you quoted and avoided understanding.

The medical profession advises. It is up to the patient to make the decision.

That's why minor children are given a chance to put off the decision until they are old enough to understand the implications themselves, instead of having some adult ... or their body ... make those decisions for them.

You are complaining about the very thing you are advocating.

Fine. Patient and doctor. There are plenty of people that don't think those two should be the final arbiters.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Texas splits girls and boys for wrestling? What a strange way to go about it, most places match everyone who weigh the same, which pits boys against girls all the time.

 

[quadraginta]

Fine. Patient and doctor. There are plenty of people that don't think those two should be the final arbiters.

Interesting.

Which people, and why not?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Interesting.

Which people, and why not?

Redstate.com seems to think they should, and that the answer is always no. I'm not sure why.

 

[quadraginta]

Redstate.com seems to think they should, and that the answer is always no. I'm not sure why.

I'm not quite sure how to parse that.

What does redstate.com have to do with someone aside from the doctor and patient being the final arbiter of a medical choice?

Are you saying that redstate.com (whoever they are) believes somebody else should be? Who, then?

And so what?

 

[Fudbucker]

That's what weight classes are.

No, I meant if Mack weighs, say 160, but has the strength of an average 120-pound boy, maybe that's the weight class Mack should compete in. I know next to nothing about wrestling though.

 

[Butter!]

Dude, BtC, don't bogart. Passit over here! Think you've had plenty, anyway.

 

[KatieG]

There might be better analogies that fit. "A bit scrawny" is not actually an outright disadvantage in wrestling. Since there are weight classes, a 'scrawny' person facing off aginst a 'hefty' person in the same class probably has height and limb length advantages. It calls for a different strategic approach to dominating the opponent, that's all. If my arm is bent at the elbow while yours is straight out, I can do almost anything I want with it. If we're at a standard start and working towards an ankle grab, my long arms and body mean I can reach yours easier than you can reach mine.

So scrawny vs. hefty isn't an outright advantage to one, it's different kinds of advantages for each.

My brother wrestled in high school. He could roll his shoulders forward and slip out of most holds. Imagine putting your arms out at a right angle, put the back of your hands together and bring your elbows together. Looks really weird! He never lost a match.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not quite sure how to parse that.

What does redstate.com have to do with someone aside from the doctor and patient being the final arbiter of a medical choice?

Are you saying that redstate.com (whoever they are) believes somebody else should be? Who, then?

And so what?

They think they should, and they think the answer is never.

 

[quadraginta]

They think they should, and they think the answer is never.

You don't seem to able to express yourself coherently on this point .

I'll just have to put it down as a zero-content reply, unless you can do better.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You don't seem to able to express yourself coherently on this point .

I'll just have to put it down as a zero-content reply, unless you can do better.

What are you talking about?

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...s-texas-girls-wrestling-title.-supposed-mean/

I'm 99% sure redstate.com does not think gender identity treatment should be a decision between doctors and patients.

 

[quadraginta]

What are you talking about?

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...s-texas-girls-wrestling-title.-supposed-mean/

I'm 99% sure redstate.com does not think gender identity treatment should be a decision between doctors and patients.

There. See? You can express yourself coherently. It just takes you a few tries.

Why is redstate.com (whoever they are) some sort of an authority on the subject? Do they have any qualifications which would justify their opinion overriding the advice of a doctor and the choices of the patient?

Are they the "plenty of people" you mentioned? Why is their opinion on this meaningful? Why should it carry any weight at all as far as a decision between a doctor and their patient is concerned?