Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Duff Man]

15 years of the IOC guidelines being in place isn't enough time to see if they're working or not. Has to be a full 25. OK. In the meantime though let's carry on spreading misinformation and daily mail style panics stores.

[Rico1304]

Fucking bigot

 

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,cofounder-of-stonewall-calls-for-calm_14648.htm

[Rico1304]

27 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

15 years of the IOC guidelines being in place isn't enough time to see if they're working or not. Has to be a full 25. OK. In the meantime though let's carry on spreading misinformation and daily mail style panics stores.

The guidelines are inadequate, there’s a video earlier in the thread addressing this.  

[Duff Man]

Haha, sure there is. And the trans athletes who are competing under these guidelines and dominating, or even winning, in their particular sport are?

[Rico1304]

6 hours ago, Duff Man said:

It can be either, you halfwit.

I just don’t like the word. Reminds me of a bloke I don’t like. That’s all. 

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Haha, sure there is. And the trans athletes who are competing under these guidelines and dominating, or even winning, in their particular sport are?

So there’s no flow down?  No ‘we’ll align to IOC rules so we’ll be ok’? 
 

I’ll find it again. It’s a woman though. 
 

here you go

 

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

[Duff Man]

So, no examples of athletes competing under these guidelines and exhibiting an unfair advantage.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

So, no examples of athletes competing under these guidelines and exhibiting an unfair advantage.

Every single one! 

[Duff Man]

8 minutes ago, Istvan Kosma said:

You could argue Rachael Mckinnon? No major medals yet but plenty of complaints from "cis" women...

 

But I guess it depends like others have said with regard to the persons size and muscle mass in regard to a particular sport...

 

 

It depends on whether you believe hormone therapy mitigates those things or not. Historical precedent suggests it does.

 

[Rico1304]

13 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

It depends on whether you believe hormone therapy mitigates those things or not. Historical precedent suggests it does.

 

Did you watch the video? 

[Rico1304]

53 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

So, no examples of athletes competing under these guidelines and exhibiting an unfair advantage.

So you either watched a 23 min video in 10 mins or you didn’t watch it at all. 

[Duff Man]

I've read it before. It's pretty weak stuff, and she's obviously massively biased, but this bit stands out after skimming through again:

 

"Compared to reference males, transwomen had lower muscle mass and more body fat, and were weaker across measurements of grip strength, bicep strength and quad strength.

The authors of these two studies, and perhaps the IOC, were concerned with how much weaker these transwomen were compared to males. I calculated how they compared to females. Well, they’re still stronger, a lot stronger, especially in the upper body."

 

If that is the case, and hormones don't mitigate the advantages trans athletes have, why aren't they winning all the time? Why is there yet to be even a single trans athlete who's made it to the Olympics, never mind won a medal? 30% stronger, but still unable to win isn't a very compelling argument for 'hormones don't work'.

 

And why were all the same people who make this argument celebrating a victory for fairness when Caster Semenya was mandated to take hormones? Either they have an effect or they don't.

[Moo]

11 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I've read it before. It's pretty weak stuff, and she's obviously massively biased, but this bit stands out after skimming through again:

 

"Compared to reference males, transwomen had lower muscle mass and more body fat, and were weaker across measurements of grip strength, bicep strength and quad strength.

The authors of these two studies, and perhaps the IOC, were concerned with how much weaker these transwomen were compared to males. I calculated how they compared to females. Well, they’re still stronger, a lot stronger, especially in the upper body."

 

If that is the case, and hormones don't mitigate the advantages trans athletes have, why aren't they winning all the time? Why is there yet to be even a single trans athlete who's made it to the Olympics, never mind won a medal? 30% stronger, but still unable to win isn't a very compelling argument for 'hormones don't work'.

 

And why were all the same people who make this argument celebrating a victory for fairness when Caster Semenya was mandated to take hormones? Either they have an effect or they don't.

Do you have any figures as to how many transathletes have been competing in the, say, 15 years you refer to?  What's the percentage compared to cis women competing? 

Don't you think that greater acceptance of the trans community (which is accelerating more than could have been expected) will lead to greater integration and greater participation? 

[Duff Man]

1 minute ago, Moo said:

Do you have any figures as to how many transathletes have been competing in the, say, 15 years you refer to?  What's the percentage compared to cis women competing? 

Don't you think that greater acceptance of the trans community (which is accelerating more than could have been expected) will lead to greater integration and greater participation? 

So you're saying that the sample size is too small? Ok, let's assume that's true, what do you propose instead?

[Rico1304]

8 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

So you're saying that the sample size is too small? Ok, let's assume that's true, what do you propose instead?

Trans women compete in the open category. 

[Duff Man]

So exclude them to a category that doesn't exist, and in which they'd be competing against themselves, when there's no justifiable reason to do so.

 

You're a genius.

[Rico1304]

34 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I've read it before. It's pretty weak stuff, and she's obviously massively biased, but this bit stands out after skimming through again:

 

"Compared to reference males, transwomen had lower muscle mass and more body fat, and were weaker across measurements of grip strength, bicep strength and quad strength.

The authors of these two studies, and perhaps the IOC, were concerned with how much weaker these transwomen were compared to males. I calculated how they compared to females. Well, they’re still stronger, a lot stronger, especially in the upper body."

 

If that is the case, and hormones don't mitigate the advantages trans athletes have, why aren't they winning all the time? Why is there yet to be even a single trans athlete who's made it to the Olympics, never mind won a medal? 30% stronger, but still unable to win isn't a very compelling argument for 'hormones don't work'.

 

And why were all the same people who make this argument celebrating a victory for fairness when Caster Semenya was mandated to take hormones? Either they have an effect or they don't.

So do you accept the science?  Maybe it’s that the men transitioning aren’t good enough to be at the sport they’ve chosen. But they are taking scholarships, putting girls off and breaking records.  Maybe their aim isn’t the Olympics.  But they have an unfair advantage b 

[Duff Man]

Again, completely failing to answer the question. Do the hormones have an effect or not? And who are the athletes who've transitioned just to infer an advantage in sports? Your arguments are just pure fantasy, all the time.

 

'Never mind what's happening in real life, and the results of actual trans athletes competing today, let me pull a wild conspiracy theory out of my arse and say yeah, but what about that?'. It's laughable.

[Strontium]

It's quite useful that the world's most famous transwoman is an Olympic gold medalist from when she was a man. Had she transitioned at, say, 25, does anyone think she wouldn't have been a gold medal-winning heptathlete?

[Duff Man]

'What about all the imaginary people in my head who are transitioning to do better at track and field? What about them, eh?'

 

Utter drivel.

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

So exclude them to a category that doesn't exist, and in which they'd be competing against themselves, when there's no justifiable reason to do so.

 

You're a genius.

The open category is currently known as ‘men’s’ 

[Duff Man]

And this is what is comes down to. In Rico's childlike mind, they're all just men, saying they're women, to do better at sport.

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

'What about all the imaginary people in my head who are transitioning to do better at track and field? What about them, eh?'

 

Utter drivel.

 

No, she's a real person, surprised you haven't heard of her.

[Duff Man]

Who's that then?

[Moo]

35 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

So you're saying that the sample size is too small? Ok, let's assume that's true, what do you propose instead?

I'm suggesting the sample size may be too small to use the argument "it hasn't happened so far".  I don't think that's a valid argument. 

What would I suggest as a proposed sample size, or suggest as an alternative arrangement?