Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Olmstead said:
I wouldn't be upset, since I'm not an idiot, but no, I likely wouldn't be attracted to them anymore after finding out, just as I wouldn't be attracted to a male cross-dresser after finding out.

And no, I can't just control that.
Click to expand...

Like finding out someone is jewish or black.
 
Olmstead said:
Was there ever a biological female (XX) that was prevented from competing due to natural hormone levels?
Click to expand...

Given that the full medical records have not been made public and the sources I can find only cite hormone levels and not underlying cause, probably.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That goes against what I found please show that is the case and the European Society of Endocrinology was wrong.

"Levels in healthy men are in the range 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L and 0 to 1.7 nmol/L in healthy women, so for fairness and considering the over-representation of women with naturally higher levels in sport, the IAAF recently formulated new regulations and defined a maximum testosterone level of 5.0 nmol/L for eligibility in the female classification of middle distance track disciplines. The Court of Arbitration for Sport approved the IAAF's regulations on 1 May 2019. "

https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/1882/femaleathletes_hirschberg_pr_final.pdf

Nothing about that level needs to be caused by a specific list of causes and if the level is caused by other ones it gets a pass. If that is truly the case please show me the regulation, that levels greater than 5.0 nmol/L are allowed provided one does not have a DSD.
Click to expand...


You're not reading my posts. I said current T levels are not all that matters.
Nor are they how we define males vs females. And again, DSDs are not what we're talking about with this movement that posits that (self) gender/ID is more important than sex

This is all sealioning.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Given that the full medical records have not been made public and the sources I can find only cite hormone levels and not underlying cause, probably.
Click to expand...

You don't actually believe that, do you? The moment a biological female were banned due to natural hormone levels, medical records would be released to prove she's female and rules would be reassesed.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
You don't actual believe that, do you? The moment a biological female were banned due to natural hormone levels, medical records would be released to prove she's female and rules would be reassesed.
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to prove that. An argument from incredulity is not really the strongest form of evidence.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The transgender closest is far more transparent than the gay closet, and the gay closet was always waaaaay more transparent then we acted like it was.

The "closet" was always more about plausible deniability than anything else.

Very, very few people are actually shocked when anyone comes out.
Click to expand...

The "closet" was about avoiding the many negative social and legal implications of being an out gay person. People lost their careers, their families, were hounded by law enforcement, and were pariahs to their communities if they weren't careful about concealing their homosexuality.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And I asked for evidence to back up your assertion. I know you won't provide any but I still like to think evidence matters.
Click to expand...

Evidence for what? That developmental (particularly during puberty) androgen levels are important in sports. Frankly, it should be obvious - reducing T levels does not take away skeletal structure, or completely eliminate muscle mass. But if you want proof, try this study

Final bit of the abstract:

Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
No, like finding out someone is male and not female.
Click to expand...

Yet you couldn't tell. Then it is suddenly all that matters.

See I am dating a trans woman and sure I wasn't sure how I would react when I got to her genitals, but I also was not afraid to call that out as an issue with me and internalized transphobia in me rather that some fault in her.
 
Olmstead said:
Can you prove that biological females have been banned? We're kind of on the same boat here.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly posted citations that the only criteria is hormone level not cause of hormone level and no one has refuted it. Show your work.
 
We're arguing in circles.

If "Factor X" doesn't give an advantage we don't have to worry about it. If it does give an advantage we to account for it IN SOME WAY.

Again why do weight classes exist? By the arguments being made here they shouldn't.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We're arguing in circles.

If "Factor X" doesn't give an advantage we don't have to worry about it. If it does give an advantage we to account for it IN SOME WAY.

Again why do weight classes exist? By the arguments being made here they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Because there are not weight classes in many sports. Though adding in say height classes to track and field would be interesting.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We're arguing in circles.

If "Factor X" doesn't give an advantage we don't have to worry about it. If it does give an advantage we to account for it IN SOME WAY.

Again why do weight classes exist? By the arguments being made here they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

At the elite level, unfair advantages are the norm. People who are exceptionally athletic will rise to the top, and often some freak coincidence of biology plays some role in their competitiveness.

it's not coincidence that professional basketball players are all unusually tall. Should Shaq have been banned for his unusual and unfair advantage of being a huge guy?

The more competitive a sport becomes, the more this will become true. If all the athletes are working extremely hard, those with innate advantages will edge out those without, and that is inherently "unfair".

(The same can be said for outright cheaping, like professional cycling. At some point you reach the point of diminishing return on hard work where the only way to get ahead is unfairly)
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
I have repeatedly posted citations that the only criteria is hormone level not cause of hormone level and no one has refuted it. Show your work.
Click to expand...

And you've shown that they reassesed their criteria when they realised that female athletes could have higher hormone levels and raised the limit. Your problem in this case is that their criteria might be faulty, not that only biological females can compete.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I have repeatedly posted citations that the only criteria is hormone level not cause of hormone level and no one has refuted it. Show your work.
Click to expand...

False. Both sex and hormone levels are important. Because people also supplement their natural levels - we do this with males as well.
 
Olmstead said:
And you've shown that they reassesed their criteria when they realised that female athletes could have higher hormone levels and raised the limit. Your problem in this case is that their criteria might be faulty, not that only biological females can compete.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not correct. They did not raise the limit when they realized that female athletes could have higher levels than were previously allowed. What they did was eliminate the limits for anyone with XX chromosomes.

Current World Athletics (governing body for international track and field) testesterone limits only apply to people with y chromosomes.
 
Louden Wilde said:
False. Both sex and hormone levels are important. Because people also supplement their natural levels - we do this with males as well.
Click to expand...

True it is only hormone level. See its fun to provide unsourced statements as if they had any kind of weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom