Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports

[1972Shocker]

nm

[Kung Wu]

I thought it would be hilarious to find out that after zero prior experience he just lets his nuts hang and proceeds to clean up in womens' collegiate nationals. But this bloke did one better; he was a college male track athlete who simply decided to switch...

Unbelievable. But @jdshock's gut instinct is right, he isn't "a burly, bearded man". I mean he was a year ago, but not now -- he shaved -- so it's okay.

Some of those women were running the final race of a long and fruitful 12+ year career, and an NCAA National Championship was on the line.

[jdshock]

There's just so much intellectual dishonesty in the way these stories get discussed. You all are acting like this woman hopped off the couch and just crushed the best women's athletes in the entire world. She won a single dII event at the tournament. There were a ton of events in which she didn't place and other tournaments that she didn't win. She would not have won a national championship at the D1 level.

And that is under NCAA rule which does not have minimum hormone levels. From what I have read, the NCAA just says you have to be on suppression medication for 12 months, as opposed to the Olympic requirements which require you show specific hormone levels for at least a year prior to even competing. Even under these less rigorous rules, her times were worse than when she competed as a male, and every single race was competitive.

So, yes, she won. But this is not an argument that (i) male to female transgender people are going to just dominate every competition; or even (ii) that hormone level restrictions don't work. And we just don't have evidence that there are loads of men who are going to pretend to be a woman, who are going to undergo months of seriously taxing hormone therapy, just because they think it's easier to win a woman's athletic event than a man's.

I'd say you're not doing your side any favors by just portraying the facts as if she waltzed in and won every event by 10 seconds, but everyone else here seems to also ignore those facts.

Edit to add one additional thought: if republicans block the House bill, it is not going to resolve the issues at the NCAA level. The NCAA clearly already has their policy in place without any legal requirement to do so.

[wufan]

Nm

[ShockingButTrue]

Well jd, thanks for at least not saying that the people taking part in this discussion are inferior to people with opinions like yours. Or some other bigoted view. False equivalent my a**.

But, jd proves it yet again: diversity matters, except for diversity of opinion.

[Kung Wu]

There's just so much intellectual dishonesty in the way these stories get discussed. ... There were a ton of events in which she didn't place and other tournaments that she didn't win. She would not have won a national championship at the D1 level.

WE are intellectually dishonest?

"She would not have won a national championship at the D1 level."

Did you know his personal best time at the 55m hurdles is 7.91s? Guess what the personal best time of the #1 NCAA D1 (Sara Gardner) athlete in the country is?

Get this ...

... also 7.91s

But WE are intellectually dishonest.

This guy metaphorically DID just "hop off a couch" and beat the very best NCAA DII athletes in the country, and has already matched the very best time of the very best DI female athlete in the country.

[jdshock]

She ran a 7.91 as a woman after undergoing hormone therapy for a year? I suspect that was her time pre-therapy, otherwise she would have won every single DII tournament around. Certainly, feel free to post your source, though.

[Kung Wu]

https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/meet/354772/results/f/2/55mh

[wufan]

jdshock, why are you so anti-cisgendered women? These women don’t have the opportunity to not train and still win. They have to BUST THEIR ASS just to remain competitive with men that have gender dysphoria.

[Kung Wu]

I've decided I am going to identify as a 10 year old, so I can compete for a national championship at soccer. Now, I know I played NCAA D1 and semi-pro and what not, but that was as an adult. I am taking hormone therapy and really suppressing my nut sack to not produce any semen anymore, and taking some mind altering drugs to reduce my memory (actually that's happening naturally), and I have shaved all the hair off my body. If I am not considered a 10 year, which I clearly am, because I self-identify as one, I am going to sue the local, regional, and national competitions into oblivion because they aren't letting me compete.

[wufan]

jdshock said: “(i) male to female transgender people are going to just dominate every competition; or even (ii) that hormone level restrictions don't work. [(iii)]And we just don't have evidence that there are loads of men who are going to pretend to be a woman, who are going to undergo months of seriously taxing hormone therapy, just because they think it's easier to win a woman's athletic event than a man's.”

You’re straw-manning here. Actual argument (I); Male to female transgender have an unfair advantage. (II); Hormone suppression is just a bad way of training. I.e. If I smoke and drink a case of beer, I will perform at a lower level than if I didn’t. If I’m an Olympic level athlete, I’m still going to be better than most other competitors...just not Olympic level. (III) it’s not that people don’t actually have gender dysphoria, it’s just that women are at an unfair disadvantage to those individuals.

So, are any of those arguments untrue?

[Kung Wu]

jdshock ... we have our first lawsuit!

I showed up at tryouts for Wichita's premier U-11 team, suited up and ready to stomp some little bitches into the ground!

I submitted my consent form and birth certificate as proof of age. I put a big asterisk next to the birthdate and a footnote clearly spelling out that I have been transitioning back to a 10 year old for over a year.

Told 'em my goo bag couldn't squirt a sperm even if Scarlett Johansson played the flute.

But they flat out refused to let me even step on the field. Hell I was so mad I grabbed a ball and smashed one upper ninety from 30 meters. Didn't shake 'em.

Will you take this lawsuit?

[jdshock]

jdshock said: “(i) male to female transgender people are going to just dominate every competition; or even (ii) that hormone level restrictions don't work. [(iii)]And we just don't have evidence that there are loads of men who are going to pretend to be a woman, who are going to undergo months of seriously taxing hormone therapy, just because they think it's easier to win a woman's athletic event than a man's.”

You’re straw-manning here. Actual argument (I); Male to female transgender have an unfair advantage. (II); Hormone suppression is just a bad way of training. I.e. If I smoke and drink a case of beer, I will perform at a lower level than if I didn’t. If I’m an Olympic level athlete, I’m still going to be better than most other competitors...just not Olympic level. (III) it’s not that people don’t actually have gender dysphoria, it’s just that women are at an unfair disadvantage to those individuals.

So, are any of those arguments untrue?

(I) Male to female advantage - I just don't think that's true. I get that you said you're a scientist and just stated "yep, there are advantages," but that's not really a data-heavy analysis. A lot of what I have seen (for example: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...ance-including) seems to suggest there is not an unfair advantage. It seems incredibly likely that there is going to be a relatively small amount of rigorous data out there. Especially when you have conflicting standards (some states having no rules, NCAA having unclear rules, and Olympics with really specific rules), you're just not going to have great data. I get that you think that the common sense logic is that there is an advantage. I have not seen the data backing that up.

(II) Bad Training - Sure, I guess. I don't really know what that means or why it's a compelling argument, though. Yes, a biological male undergoing hormone suppression therapy would perform worse after the therapy than prior to the therapy. That is my point.

(III) Dysphoria -- Again, I'm not really sure how this is an independent argument at all. This relies fully on your first point that there is an unfair advantage. It seems to me that the only argument is that there is an unfair advantage. I am not sure I agree with that or that I have seen data to support that argument.

[Kung Wu]

An animal born with twig and berries is considered male.

An animal born with ovaries and a uterus is considered female.

Axiomatic principles that need no science whatsoever for all of humanity to agree on.

When a male decides to modify themselves, they are no closer to having their own egg producing ovaries and a uterus than the day they were born. They are still male, just self mutilated to look more female.

Same with a woman. If she decides to have a penis constructed from other body parts, she is no closer to having her own sperm producing testicles than the day she was born. Still a female, just self mutilated to look more male.

This is all so axiomatic it's painful to watch people allow themselves to be willfully deceived of such basic human understanding.

Absolutely no science needed whatsoever to prove any of this. Axioms do not and in fact cannot be proven. They are simply understood by all of humanity since the dawn of human existence.

a = a
b = b

Q.E.D.

Maybe we need to rename all of the competitions to:

Born With Testicles Division
Born With Ovaries Division

But since a person born with testicles and penis is the very definition of male, and a person born with ovaries and uterus is the very definition of female, then there is no need to do so.

Q.E.D.

[jdshock]

An animal born with twig and berries is considered male.

An animal born with ovaries and a uterus is considered female.

Axiomatic principles that need no science whatsoever for all of humanity to agree on.

When a male decides to modify themselves, they are no closer to having their own egg producing ovaries and a uterus than the day they were born. They are still male, just self mutilated to look more female.

Same with a woman. If she decides to have a penis constructed from other body parts, she is no closer to having her own sperm producing testicles than the day she was born. Still a female, just self mutilated to look more male.

This is all so axiomatic it's painful to watch people allow themselves to be willfully deceived of such basic human understanding.

Absolutely no science needed whatsoever to prove any of this. Axioms do not and in fact cannot be proven. They are simply understood by all of humanity since the dawn of human existence.

a = a
b = b

Q.E.D.

Maybe we need to rename all of the competitions to:

Born With Testicles Division
Born With Ovaries Division

But since a person born with testicles and penis is the very definition of male, and a person born with ovaries and uterus is the very definition of female, then there is no need to do so.

Q.E.D.

But why must there be different divisions aside from performance reasons? Maybe there are performance differences, and that is a compelling reason to require anyone who was born biologically male to compete with everyone else born biologically a male.

You have put forth no such argument, though. I suspect the reasoning for many people is that people think it is unnatural or icky or whatever. The terminology of "mutilated to look more male" certainly suggests at least some level of discomfort with the concept. I'm not sure ickiness is a compelling factor, and your argument adds little to the debate without an explanation of why there should be separate divisions.

[Kung Wu]

But why must there be different divisions aside from performance reasons? Maybe there are performance differences, and that is a compelling reason to require anyone who was born biologically male to compete with everyone else born biologically a male.

You have put forth no such argument, though. I suspect the reasoning for many people is that people think it is unnatural or icky or whatever. The terminology of "mutilated to look more male" certainly suggests at least some level of discomfort with the concept. I'm not sure ickiness is a compelling factor, and your argument adds little to the debate without an explanation of why there should be separate divisions.

That's also so obvious it doesnt even need to be said: To ensure an even playing field for female competitors.

[Kung Wu]

You must REALLY hate the concept of the Special Olympics. Amirite? I mean why do we need divisions?

Do you or don't you think I should be able to compete as a 10 year old? I mean why must we have divisions?

Why is it that we have had them since the dawn of humanity and somehow you think your party's philosophical wunderkind have discovered some new universal truth?

[jdshock]

You must REALLY hate the concept of the Special Olympics. Amirite? I mean why do we need divisions?

Do you or don't you think I should be able to compete as a 10 year old? I mean why must we have divisions?

Why is it that we have had them since the dawn of humanity and somehow you think your party's philosophical wunderkind have discovered some new universal truth?

It appears the topic has become more personal, and less academic. Are you even reading my posts? I specifically said performance is a compelling reason. I have not seen anyone put forth any other reason to support separate divisions until your post describing the reproductive organs of males and females.

If performance is the reason, I suspect there should be data that supports your claim that a biological male who undergoes hormone suppression therapy would compete at a level beyond the level at which female competitors could perform. Maybe that data exists. I haven't seen it. I have seen data that suggests the opposite.

I suspect (tongue firmly planted in cheek) there is strong data to suggest Special Olympics competitors cannot compete on a fair playing field with Olympic athletes. I suspect there is strong data to suggest grown adults cannot compete on a fair playing field with 10 year olds.

[Kung Wu]

I specifically said performance is a compelling reason.

No you didn't. You specifically said "Maybe ..." leaving the door open as if some alternate reality could possibly exist.


There is mounds and mounds and mounds of data to show that males and females cannot compete on equal footing. It's up to your quacky scientists to prove that a man that has self mutilated is now female.

That will never ever happen, and therefore men should not be able to compete in women's competitions, no matter how they try and claim they have retarded their body. Even men that claim to be women because they are taking drugs. They are still men, and no science will EVER disprove that.

Insinuating that I am an adult is straight up ageist. I am a 10 year old. Period. There is NO DATA whatsoever to prove that a transitioning adult with hormones can outcompete a chronological 10 year old. So I MUST be allowed to compete.

[jdshock]

No you didn't. You specifically said "Maybe ..." leaving the door open as if some alternate reality could possibly exist.


There is mounds and mounds and mounds of data to show that males and females cannot compete on equal footing. It's up to your quacky scientists to prove that a man that has self mutilated is now female.

That will never ever happen, and therefore men should not be able to compete in women's competitions, no matter how they try and claim they have retarded their body. Even men that claim to be women because they are taking drugs. They are still men, and no science will EVER disprove that.

Insinuating that I am an adult is straight up ageist. I am a 10 year old. Period. There is NO DATA whatsoever to prove that a transitioning adult with hormones can outcompete a chronological 10 year old. So I MUST be allowed to compete.

If we're going to get into a ridiculous match about what I did and did not say, let's be clear... I said "Maybe there are performance differences, and that is a compelling reason..." So, assuming there are performance differences, that is a compelling reason.

I put forth data. It has not yet been refuted. If wufan is willing to continue the conversation with scientific data, I'm happy to continue the discussion. To the extent you are interested in using ridiculous analogies and using terminology such as "mutilation," the discussion between you and me on this subject is probably no longer productive.

[ShockTalk]

Where is the compromise? Why not just have a third class for transgendered? It is what it is. Male at birth, female at birth, and transgendered. I also see no problem competing "up". Sorry that nature messed up, but we cannot totally correct that. Again, it is what it is.

On the "data" thing. What is the rush to change the way things are currently without solid science? Stay the status quo until there is enough evidence. I'm pretty certain, that in humans, males are physically stronger and faster in all sports that require those attributes. That's why there are female classifications for those sports. It would be a disservice to all participating females if a "Bruce Jenner" decide at 27 to become a "Caitlyn Jenner" and participate in the next Olympics as a "female". Yes, I used quotes on female there and it wasn't to be icky.