All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Panfoot]

Yep. I knew it was coming the moment he mentioned pronouns. It *always* comes down to transphobia eventually.

I knew this is where it was heading last night but didn't want to say anything because...yeah, inevitable.

[hyped78]

Yep. I knew it was coming the moment he mentioned pronouns. It *always* comes down to transphobia eventually.

I actually watched the Dave Chappelle special on Netflix and didn't think it was funny at all

[hyped78]

I knew this is where it was heading last night but didn't want to say anything because...yeah, inevitable.

Of course, and we can't have a discussion/ debate about transgenders in women's sports, can we? No, because there is nothing to discuss and there is only one irrefutable truth for the 'woke' folks - whatever they say is the absolute truth.

It's exactly the same that the Maga mob say, just from the opposite spectrum.

[Tendrin]

What does having conversion surgery (not sure if this is the correct terminology in English, apologies if it isn't) have to do with women's sports? Are you saying women aren't at a disadvantage? Where are women's rights in that situation?

...bottom surgery isn't even needed! Androgen blockers and already existant rules require a trans woman to have well below the testosterone in their system than that of their cisgender competitors. If trans women were a threat to women's sports, their track record of perfomance in them doesn't bear that out at all. Bone density in trans women pre-HRT is typcially lower than that of their cisgender males, and actually improves once they got on HRT, for example, which means that the image of the 'hulking man in a dress' is typically incredibly accurate. A trans woman's athletic performance measured before and after HRT, over a period of time, shows *drastic* reductions in capacity compared to before HRT.

The only reason to believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is if you believe they aren't women, and if you believe they're not women, you don't really believe that trans people are real and deserving of full participation in society. Moreover, it ignores the vast variety of athletic bodies, skills, and more that exist in Cis women, and moreover, how bodies that don't match a misogynistic ideal of 'woman' will be discriminated against, particular ones of color, in an effort to stop the 'threat' of trans women.

This is really giving you more attention than you deserve, at this point, as no one asked for the transphobic opinion you ventured in the thread, but we all knew it was coming, like I said.

[Tendrin]

Of course, and we can't have a discussion/ debate about transgenders in women's sports, can we? No, because there is nothing to discuss and there is only one irrefutable truth for the 'woke' folks - whatever they say is the absolute truth.

It's exactly the same that the Maga mob say, just from the opposite spectrum.

It's not the same. Not even close.

[hyped78]

...bottom surgery isn't even needed! Androgen blockers and already existant rules require a trans woman to have well below the testosterone in their system than that of their cisgender competitors. If trans women were a threat to women's sports, their track record of perfomance in them doesn't bear that out at all. Bone density in trans women pre-HRT is typcially lower than that of their cisgender males, and actually improves once they got on HRT, for example, which means that the image of the 'hulking man in a dress' is typically incredibly accurate. A trans woman's athletic performance measured before and after HRT, over a period of time, shows *drastic* reductions in capacity compared to before HRT.

The only reason to believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is if you believe they aren't women, and if you believe they're not women, you don't really believe that trans people are real and deserving of full participation in society. Moreover, it ignores the vast variety of athletic bodies, skills, and more that exist in Cis women, and moreover, how bodies that don't match a misogynistic ideal of 'woman' will be discriminated against, particular ones of color, in an effort to stop the 'threat' of trans women.

This is really giving you more attention than you deserve, at this point, as no one asked for the transphobic opinion you ventured in the thread, but we all knew it was coming, like I said.

Some scientists may disagree with you, or at least it's not a done deal/ slam dunk either way - at least with available scientific evidence at this point, to be reviewed with future data points:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/61346517

This section:
Tucker: The point of the women's category is to exclude male advantage, which comes as a result of testosterone.
Until it can be shown that that advantage doesn't persist or exist in trans women, then I would say that there's no basis to allow trans women in.
The point of all that is that if there were no evidence at all, I would say that an exclusion policy would be the prudent start point.
However, we do have evidence - we have 13 studies that show significant retained advantage. We have a number of other studies of males with lower testosterone levels with prostate cancer, we know what happens with training, and so I think collectively the picture is quite strong to suggest that advantages are retained.
Finally, I think that what that leads to is the prediction that over time you will see athletes like Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges, so they are in effect the manifestation of what we know will happen physiologically.
So I would be quite confident at this point that a policy that regulates women's sport by excluding male advantage, which includes trans women, is the evidence-based one.
It's not impossible that in time evidence will emerge to challenge that and then we can reconsider that, but I think [the IOC] got it backwards in the beginning by allowing it in until proven otherwise. It should have been excluded until it could be shown that the advantages can be removed.

Harper: The science is in its infancy and we are not going to have definitive answers for probably 20 years.
There are some, including the IOC, that have said until we know [more] we shouldn't restrict trans athletes.
What I would say is that until we know for sure, sport's governing bodies should do the best they can with the data that exists, with the knowledge that we have today, with the understanding that any policy they create now should be subject to change one we get more data.
So for instance, World Athletics has said that once transgender women reduce testosterone for 12 months, they should be allowed in. That's not a perfect policy - nobody is saying it is - but World Athletics has said this is the best we can do with the available science.
That I think is a more reasonable approach than either saying there shouldn't be any restrictions on trans women or we shouldn't let trans women in until we know for certain.


Note:
Ross Tucker is a sports scientist who says the physiological differences established during puberty can create "significant performance advantages (between men and women)
Joanna Harper is a sports scientist and is transgender herself. She studies the effects of transition on female transgender athletes.

This is from the BBC, no Fox News

[Panfoot]

Of course, and we can't have a discussion/ debate about transgenders in women's sports, can we? No, because there is nothing to discuss and there is only one irrefutable truth for the 'woke' folks - whatever they say is the absolute truth.

It's exactly the same that the Maga mob say, just from the opposite spectrum.

There is no debate, go hear what doctors have to say about the capabilities of transgender athletes, not Tucker Carlson. This wasn't an "issue" until the Right needed a new bogeyman(as going for just gays was getting potentially politically dangerous for them), just like the bathroom bill garbage before it. Since you are just a pathetic bigoted right wing troll, I won't bother responding or reading your comments anymore. Whine in silence about the "woke" mob or whatever else Fox says to.

[hyped78]

It's not the same. Not even close.

To your eyes, which are clearly biased for one of the sides (please correct me if I'm wrong)

[hyped78]

There is no debate, go hear what doctors have to say about the capabilities of transgender athletes, not Tucker Carlson. This wasn't an "issue" until the Right needed a new bogeyman(as going for just gays was getting potentially politically dangerous for them), just like the bathroom bill garbage before it. Since you are just a pathetic bigoted right wing troll, I won't bother responding or reading your comments anymore. Whine in silence about the "woke" mob or whatever else Fox says to.

I posted an article from the BBC with interviews with two scientists. Happy to read more articles like that, that defend both views - and I know that there is scientific evidence that goes both ways, so at least yes, there is room for debate and collection of further data points. To say there is no room for debate is, well, un-scientific to say the least, and perhaps even petulant.

If you had paid attention, you would have seen that I've been posting CNN links, not Fox News. I know that's hard to grasp.

I don't listen to Tucker Carlson. And why would I, at least on this matter? He's not a scientist.

[scourge]

Someone throw a fish, maybe the sealion will roll back into the ocean and go away.

[Dalak]

As I keep saying, there is a specific definition to malicious compliance. It is distinct from maliciousness. I'm pretty sure DeSantis and McConnell are capable of malicious compliance, but I'm unaware of a situation where they seem to follow the text of a law in a way that is meant to provoke a backlash against it. They've got different resources available.

Maliciousness is maliciousness, whether it's maliciously wanting a law to fail and complying with it or filibustering it/killing it in committee/declaring it unconstitiutional or whatever. You always seem to assume that those on the left side of thing secretly want to take guns, open all borders, and now kill a clearly bigoted law when they are protecting their own asses from GoP retribution. The Right however couldn't possibly want things like Gay Marriage taken away like they are saying day & night as it's too popular and the only ones claiming it are outliers like the ones who are in elected positions or sit in courts that can literally kill it dead.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Haha, and why is that bigotry? I am not saying that Trans people don't have rights or shouldn't exist, but they shouldn't compete with women. Simple.

IMO, ignorance is what keeps bigotry alive.

[hyped78]

Someone throw a fish, maybe the sealion will roll back into the ocean and go away.

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution

[hyped78]

IMO, ignorance is what keeps bigotry alive.

And yet I am the only one posting interviews with scientists about this topic, while everyone just hurls insults. As said, happy to read scientific evidence on both sides.

[hyped78]

Here is another article from WebMD:
https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exerci...ave-advantages

Given the range, would you assume that there might be different advantages for trans women in different sports?
Harper: Absolutely. I've been saying since 2018 that we should be looking sport-by-sport on regulations for trans athletes.


But yes, hurl the insults instead of providing reading material and/ or data, makes you look great. At the very least, yes, this is a topic open for debate and for review of available scientific data.