• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose "group historically subject to oppression does not equal minority" is the same sort of thing as "you know, everybody is ethnic to somewhere."
 
p0lka said:
"anti-ableist activists and transabled people".
I didn't even know that was a thing, what the blooming heck.
Click to expand...

It seems a natural progression to me. Body dysphoria is no more ridiculous than gender dysphoria. I've no doubt they're genuine mental conditions, but why either condition should trump reality and demand catering to is a mystery to me in either case.
 
Interesting read on low dose testosterone cream's affect on young female performance.
Even with a small placebo effect in the control group, it was a pretty significant increase in endurance and lean muscle (after just 10 weeks). 8.5% better.

The levels stayed below the upper limit now set for female runners. (and way below what males have)

https://www.theguardian.com/science...oosts-womens-athletic-performance-study-shows

Article has the commentary but these are the results:
Circulating levels of testosterone rose from 0.9 nmol/litre of blood to 4.3 nmol/L in the women given the hormone cream. This was below the recent 5 nmol/L IAAF limit and below the normal male range of 8-29 nmol/L.

Running time to exhaustion increased significantly by 21.17 seconds (8.5%) in the testosterone group, compared with those given the inactive substance. The group given the hormone also had significant changes in lean muscle mass, gaining 923g vs 135g overall and 398g vs 91g in their legs.
Click to expand...

So thinking about non-binary female high school athletes (ie girls team), who identify as a bit more masculine, this might improve their well-being with more muscular lean body mass on their frame- closer to their internal sense of self.

Should they be allowed to use it if it was prescribed for them?
What would be the argument against it?
 
Emily's Cat said:
It pains me to say it, but I still think there's a subconscious bias in there that allows males to have partial support and still be viewed as allies...
Click to expand...

If Boudicca is an example of the norm, then I'd disagree.

I pointed out that I've worked for trans rights, at personal expense to myself, but because I draw a line, I'm a transphobe/TREF/whatever pejorative they choose to call me.

In Boudicca's mind and action, it's clearly all or nothing, and I have a strong suspicion she's quite typical of the trans activist stereotype they've developed for themselves.
 
The Atheist said:
In Boudicca's mind and action, it's clearly all or nothing, and I have a strong suspicion she's quite typical of the trans activist stereotype they've developed for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think it will vary by country.

The US seems dominated by "bathroom wars" (a simple question which invites an all or nothing approach), while the UK sees more discussion of wider issues such as womens' shelters and sports.
 
Sherkeu said:
So thinking about non-binary female high school athletes (ie girls team), who identify as a bit more masculine, this might improve their well-being with more muscular lean body mass on their frame- closer to their internal sense of self.

Should they be allowed to use it if it was prescribed for them?
What would be the argument against it?
Click to expand...


No they shouldn't. It's a performance-enhancing drug, and it's banned. If athletes can be stripped of their medals and publicly shamed for using a nasal decongestant they didn't realise had a banned substance in it, and tested positive at a level which everybody agrees would not actually have affected their performance, additional testosterone should be a no-no under all circumstances.

And their "sense of self" has nothing to do with it. If you allow it, soon all female athletes will have to take it in order to remain competitive (assuming they're lucky enough to be competing against only females in the first place) and the entire sport will be nothing but a drug-takers' free for all.

Maybe the male and female events should be clarified as "anybody who has ever gone through male puberty and/or taken exogenous testosterone in whatever dose" and "everybody who hasn't".
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you're right, but the explanation may not be simply sexism (though that might contribute). I think there's an element that's similar to the vitriol that, say, black conservatives get above and beyond white conservatives.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. From what I've observed, I think there is also another (very human) reason why TRAs (that are transwomen themselves) have such vitriol towards adult human females: jealousy.
 
Rolfe said:
Maybe the male and female events should be clarified as "anybody who has ever gone through male puberty and/or taken exogenous testosterone in whatever dose" and "everybody who hasn't".
Click to expand...

A good idea, there is evidence that going through male puberty confers an advantage, e.g. see this paper

Also - note that male development involves other androgens (besides testosterone) as well.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
No they shouldn't. It's a performance-enhancing drug, and it's banned. If athletes can be stripped of their medals and publicly shamed for using a nasal decongestant they didn't realise had a banned substance in it, and tested positive at a level which everybody agrees would not actually have affected their performance, additional testosterone should be a no-no under all circumstances.

And their "sense of self" has nothing to do with it. If you allow it, soon all female athletes will have to take it in order to remain competitive (assuming they're lucky enough to be competing against only females in the first place) and the entire sport will be nothing but a drug-takers' free for all.

Maybe the male and female events should be clarified as "anybody who has ever gone through male puberty and/or taken exogenous testosterone in whatever dose" and "everybody who hasn't".
Click to expand...

Agree. That's sort of my point in asking.
These "I identify as..." will get stickier with all the nuances in the ever popular 'non-binary' category.

How can a coach ban a female with a 4.3 level testosterone standing next to a male body 'girl' with a 20+ level of the same substance? Seems convoluted. They are both expressing their internal identity. It's supposed to be all about inclusiveness, right?

The critics say the testosterone doesnt really matter much,so what would be the reason to allow one and not the other? If they admit it is performance enhancing, then they admit they have someone on the same substance on the team- and for some reason that is A-OK. (natural or not, it's a high level that makes a difference...plus having the other beneficial male attributes.)

Ps. I am specifically speaking of high school since the recent White House verbage was directed at 'children'. Not college or after since they have more stringent rules. And I think your prediction could be spot on at some schools where this becomes popular. Some girls will be pressured to adapt to it using hormones.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Maybe the male and female events should be clarified as "anybody who has ever gone through male puberty and/or taken exogenous testosterone in whatever dose" and "everybody who hasn't".
Click to expand...
It might be simpler to have one league for all those who've never taken exogenous testosterone or gone through male puberty, and another league that is open to all comers so long as they aren't currently using performance enhancing drugs (e.g. NHL).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom