Connecticut girls lose support from Biden administration in transgender athlete case

[Mithrae]

I decline your ploy to get into a "he said", "she said" dispute

Starting a "he said, she said" dispute... being shown the fallacy of your claims... then asserting that you're not going to get into a "he said, she said" dispute... and THEN trying to prove your "he said, she said" point again. Nice work

The ONLY relevancy, as I keep trying imprint on your stubborn brain, is that among the population of trans gender athletes known in women's sports, they are at the higher end of the bell curve WITHIN the groups they compete.

By all means, you're welcome to provide the data proving this assertion. Obviously (and particularly given your track record so far) your mere say-so is worth, if anything, a little less than nothing.

So if that population scores above the average compared to all real women in that competitive sport grouping: be it Commonwealth games or age brackets, or any other group, then there is an advantage.

So as I said, show me the average. Show me that for every McMinnon, Hubbard, et al. there are scores, hundreds, or thousands of trans female competitors that average out the trans bell curve for a sport group - you can't because they don't exist to our knowledge.

Now if you can't grasp the statistical principle behind my assertions, I don't have the time or inclination to tutor you. But here's a hint: in all the commonwealth games how many were transgender females? What was their median placing? Was their median placing exactly the placing of biological females in the same competition?

Laurel Hubbard looks set to be come the first ever transgender Olympian and by implication may likewise have been the only transgender athlete in the Commonwealth Games... so you want to look at the "average" of transgender Commonwealth or Olympic athletes to make some kind of argument? I know you've asked this before but I didn't bother responding because I figured it must have been just a poor choice of words, that surely - surely! - you would understand the problem with this. An "average" from a sample size of one is essentially meaningless, a sample of two or three not much better. On the 'bell curve' of cis females interested in athletics there are thousands of women near the top end, so those qualifying for elite competitions will cover a fair spread of ability; but the bell curve of trans female athletes has far fewer members, meaning only a handful at the top. There may be no trans qualifiers for many elite competitions (would that give you an average of zero and disprove your point?), or just one or two offering no viable averaging method for trans athletic performance generally.

One possible way of deriving valid conclusions about trans athletic performance would be look at straightforward averages based on viable sample sizes, which necessarily requires athletic results from physically-inclined but less elite groups. This was the approach of Timothy Roberts et al, mentioned above, using evaluation data from military service members. If trans female Air Force members (46 women from 2013 to 2018) achieve the same fitness results to cis female Air Force members after two years on hormone replacement treatment, all else being equal that strongly suggests that any residual advantages of a once-masculine physique have been effectively nullified by the disadvantages of having even lower testosterone levels than the cis women, apparently with some possible ambiguity in the case of running.

Another way of deriving valid conclusions would be comparing the averages of male athletes vs. female athletes at a certain level and see how that difference corresponds to the performance of trans athletes at that level before vs. after transitioning: For example if there's robust data indicating that elite male athletes on average are ~20% better at a given sport than women, then all we'd need is data from a few elite trans female athletes indicating a ~20% decrease in performance after transitioning to be confident that any residual advantages have been fully offset. This was the approach of Joanna Harper et al which BrotherFease has repeatedly mentioned, suggesting that as little as twelve months on hormone replacement treatment is enough to nullify any advantages.

The fact that both of these distinct methods form convergent lines of evidence confirming that trans women can indeed compete on equal footing after a year or two within the hormone guidelines should be rather persuasive to an intelligent and objective person, particularly given the total absence of any contrary evidence. But instead you want to talk about "averaging" the results from a sample size of one or two in competitions where there have been trans female qualifiers (while presumably glossing over and ignoring any competitions where they have failed to qualify)

 

[Mithrae]

LOL, I've already exposed the fallaciousness of your claims, including you misrepresentation of your own study. I also provided another study that confirmed among the average performing individuals there is still a VAST DIFFERENCE after hormone treatment.

A 2021 study which begins its abstract by falsely claiming that "Whether [the IOC] regulation removes the male performance advantage has not been scrutinized" hardly inspires confidence, don't you think? Particularly when that same study goes on to examine not actual performance of athletes, but physiological metrics such as bone density and muscle mass... from individuals/studies that weren't focused on athletics! "The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women." Non-athletic transgender people born male who learn that their reduction in testosterone levels during treatment will reduce their muscle mass, strength etc. can and probably should be fully expected to start working out more, on average, to compensate for that downside. But obviously those results would not in any way translate across to trans women who had already been athletes or physically active prior to their transition, and thus does not offer any information on the actual performance effect of gender transition which (contrary to the authors' false claims) had indeed been scrutinized already.

 

[Batcat]

So how many instances do we know of in which transgendered people are competing in women’s sports?

Considering how many are transitioning a lot of records have been shattered.

Transgender Athletes Now Dominate Women's Sports - News Punch

As the world's ruling class become more "woke," growing numbers of transgender athletes are entering female sports and conquering women's events.

newspunch.com

 

[Aristaeus]

Here's the issue with your statement there. In order for a transgender girl to participate in female sports, they have to be on estrogen for at least a year. Estrogen in the male body decreases muscle mass and impacts the person's balance. In order words, we're not talking about somebody who wakes one day and says, "I want to play on the girls team". They have to go through transitional steps.

It only decreases muscle mass slightly. Physical strength and speed remain even after years of testosterone suppression.
What if a transwoman wants to play in women's sport but doesn't want hormone therapy because they only have mild dysphoria?

 

[Mithrae]

Considering how many are transitioning a lot of records have been shattered.

Transgender Athletes Now Dominate Women's Sports - News Punch

As the world's ruling class become more "woke," growing numbers of transgender athletes are entering female sports and conquering women's events.

newspunch.com

"Here are five times transgender athletes shattered women’s sports records, according to The Daily Wire."

Five times? Impressive. There are 50 US states. There's something like a hundred and eighty countries in the world, but perhaps only 50 or so countries and regions recognizing transgender competition. There are... how many sporting events and categories? Half a dozen different running distances, at school, college, and various age groupings... same for swimming... same for lifting... etc. etc. There are literally tens of thousands of state/national records and titles in various sports and categories out there. If The Daily Wire had scrounged up fifty or a hundred or two hundred state/national titles won by transgender athletes, that would about the proportion we should expect to see (~0.3 to 1%), at least in the long run (hehe), given the prevalence of transgenderism in the general and hence presumably athletic populations. Instead we've seen fewer than a dozen token examples posted by a few different people in the thread

 

[Tiny]

"Here are five times transgender athletes shattered women’s sports records, according to The Daily Wire."

Five times? Impressive. There are 50 US states. There's something like a hundred and eighty countries in the world, but perhaps only 50 or so countries and regions recognizing transgender competition. There are... how many sporting events and categories? Half a dozen different running distances, at school, college, and various age groupings... same for swimming... same for lifting... etc. etc. There are literally tens of thousands of state/national records and titles in various sports and categories out there. If The Daily Wire had scrounged up fifty or a hundred or two hundred state/national titles won by transgender athletes, that would about the proportion we should expect to see (~0.3 to 1%), at least in the long run (hehe), given the prevalence of transgenderism in the general and hence presumably athletic populations. Instead we've seen fewer than a dozen token examples posted by a few different people in the thread

And maybe the reason we aren't seeing a lot of records broken by trans athletes is because there aren't a lot of them in the sports field (yet). It's not because they are not physically superior.

Anyway I fail to see the point of arguing whether trans-female athletes are breaking records in a number proportional to their population size. We don't need "proof" like that to know that it's not fair to pit real born females against physical males in sports. And like I and others have pointed out, taking estrogen still does not completely mitigate the physical prowess of trans athletes, for the very simple reason that physical prowess is not solely determined by hormones.

 

[Mithrae]

And maybe the reason we aren't seeing a lot of records broken by trans athletes is because there aren't a lot of them in the sports field (yet). It's not because they are not physically superior.

Anyway I fail to see the point of arguing whether trans-female athletes are breaking records in a number proportional to their population size. We don't need "proof" like that to know that it's not fair to pit real born females against physical males in sports. And like I and others have pointed out, taking estrogen still does not completely mitigate the physical prowess of trans athletes, for the very simple reason that physical prowess is not solely determined by hormones.

As already outlined at length - most recently in post #226 - convergent lines of evidence from Joanna Harper et al and Timothy Roberts et al show that any residual advantages of a once-masculine physique will have been fully offset after a year or two within international hormone guidelines (with some possible ambiguity in the case of running), while we have seen not a single shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

What we have seen is blind dogmatism (such as your posts, merely making assertions and declaring you don't need any proof), deception/misinformation (such as trying to present someone bench pressing two-thirds of a national record as some kind of dominance of the sport), abject failure to understand basic statistics (such as demanding an "average" one competitor or emphasizing half a dozen transgender titles when in the long run we'd expect hundreds) and an apparently dishonest/biased study suggesting that non-athletic trans women may compensate for expected loss of muscle mass/strength by working out more during and after transition.

 

[ProgressPlease]

So much dogma on both sides and no nuance.

I highly recommend reading the references in this link https://womenssportspolicy.org/references/ You can read the studies and statements regarding the advantage in sport based on biological sex.
Martina Navratilova's working group is dedicated to finding a solution which is inclusive while protecting single sex sport. AND they are keeping politics out of it.

Women's Sports Policy Working Group - Safeguarding Girls' and Women's Sport and Including Transgender Athletes

Our mission is to protect girls’ and women’s competitive sport for biological females while including trans girls and trans women through evidence-based, respectful criteria.

womenssportspolicy.org

 

[Batcat]

"Here are five times transgender athletes shattered women’s sports records, according to The Daily Wire."

Five times? Impressive. There are 50 US states. There's something like a hundred and eighty countries in the world, but perhaps only 50 or so countries and regions recognizing transgender competition. There are... how many sporting events and categories? Half a dozen different running distances, at school, college, and various age groupings... same for swimming... same for lifting... etc. etc. There are literally tens of thousands of state/national records and titles in various sports and categories out there. If The Daily Wire had scrounged up fifty or a hundred or two hundred state/national titles won by transgender athletes, that would about the proportion we should expect to see (~0.3 to 1%), at least in the long run (hehe), given the prevalence of transgenderism in the general and hence presumably athletic populations. Instead we've seen fewer than a dozen token examples posted by a few different people in the thread

So your don’t care about the female athletes who didn’t win and may have lost scholarships because of it.

Female high school athletes fear for their future with inclusion of transgender women in sports​

by Joseph Simonson, Political Reporter |
| February 09, 2021 11:52 AM

Selina Soule spent years training in the hopes of securing a college scholarship and leaving behind a legacy at her high school by setting new records in track.

But those plans were temporarily put on hold one day at the Connecticut Indoor Track & Field State Championships in 2019 when she placed one spot away from qualifying for the finals and the subsequent opportunity to compete at the New England Regional Championships.

That meant missing a crucial opportunity to compete in front of recruiters and secure financial aid that would help alleviate the heavy burden of the cost of college for her family. Two competitors in that race went on to the New England regionals, with one of them setting a girls' record for the 55-meter dash and later winning two titles. They now hold 15 state women championship titles and 17 school records.

Who are they? Biological men who identify as women

Female high school athletes fear for their future with inclusion of transgender women in sports

Selina Soule spent years training in the hopes of securing a college scholarship and leaving behind a legacy at her high school by setting new records in track.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Tiny]

As already outlined at length - most recently in post #226 - convergent lines of evidence from Joanna Harper et al and Timothy Roberts et al show that any residual advantages of a once-masculine physique will have been fully offset after a year or two within international hormone guidelines (with some possible ambiguity in the case of running), while we have seen not a single shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

I will go back to read that. Although I don't have a background in science, however it just seems common sense to me. Estrogen might weaken muscles, make the penis more atrophied, decrease sex drive...etc, I don't doubt that. However, structural differences, such as a larger heart, bigger bones, and things like that, I just don't think they can be changed by being on estrogen. I guess you can sort of argue that being on estrogen will make a trans-woman so "weakened" that these structural advantages are literally all offset, and if that's the case then I want to see proof. And also, if what you are claiming is true, then the implication is that natural born women would be exceedingly weak, compared to males, because their bodies have been immersed in estrogen (which you portray as having a very profound, weakening effect on the body) their entire lives.

What we have seen is blind dogmatism (such as your posts, merely making assertions and declaring you don't need any proof),

I am not making an assertion, I am making a value judgment. And no, I literally do NOT need "proof" to back up a value judgment.

Do you know what a value judgment is?

 

[gino]

And this is why some of us are "transphobic". Why should I agree to support a group that refuses to be reasonable? This thread is proof of that. There are studies that show that a male that transitions keeps their larger lung capacity, larger and denser bones and greater muscle size and density. All of these traits are a huge benefit to many/most athletes. If the other side refuses to be reasonable, why should I be?

 

[Mithrae]

So much dogma on both sides and no nuance.

You are much better than the rest of us, of course. Although ironically, it seems that most other folk in the thread are at least engaging with one another, on some level, whereas repeatedly posting the same message with little variation and zero actual engagement might aptly be described as a kind of preaching.

 

[Mithrae]

So your don’t care about the female athletes who didn’t win and may have lost scholarships because of it.

Should I? Not being good enough to get the first place ribbon, missing out on any freebies potentially associated with it and therefore having to go the same route as all the plebs? Talk about first world problems!

Who do you think should decide whether transgender students compete in high school sports events? I reckon that probably the best folk to make that decision are the high school sports organizations based on students' best interests and current evidence. Crazy, I know. It should be totally obvious - especially to self-proclaimed libertarians - that this is a decision requiring the full force of centralized federal government right up to the highest levels of the judiciary and Presidential Statements of Interest.

 

[Mithrae]

I am not making an assertion, I am making a value judgment. And no, I literally do NOT need "proof" to back up a value judgment.

Do you know what a value judgment is?

Do you?
"taking estrogen still does not completely mitigate the physical prowess of trans athletes"
"It's not because they are not physically superior."
Those don't look like value judgements to me.

I will go back to read that. Although I don't have a background in science, however it just seems common sense to me. Estrogen might weaken muscles, make the penis more atrophied, decrease sex drive...etc, I don't doubt that. However, structural differences, such as a larger heart, bigger bones, and things like that, I just don't think they can be changed by being on estrogen. I guess you can sort of argue that being on estrogen will make a trans-woman so "weakened" that these structural advantages are literally all offset, and if that's the case then I want to see proof. And also, if what you are claiming is true, then the implication is that natural born women would be exceedingly weak, compared to males, because their bodies have been immersed in estrogen (which you portray as having a very profound, weakening effect on the body) their entire lives.

Okay, looks like a little less certainty there, that's good. Did you enjoy the read?

"Common sense" has people claiming that the earth is flat. Common sense would suggest that a mighty male athlete surely wouldn't be made as weak as a kitten by something as trivial as someone coughing near them... and yet it happens all the time. So tell me again what common sense says about taking month after month of treatments specifically intended to mitigate or remove masculine characteristics, and why this 'common sense' is more reliable than actual quantified scientific studies?

Like you, I know next to nothing on the subject too; on page 2-3 of the thread I was assuming that trans athletes do have an advantage and open to the possibility of their exclusion from professional/elite competition. But because I know next to nothing about it, I don't go around making "value judgements" implying that I know more about cycling for example than the International Cycling Union and more about transgender athletes in the sport than their committees tasked with studying and recommending policy on the matter. I figure they probably know what they're doing a lot more than I do, so running my mouth off about how their policies are "not fair" (and how I don't need any kind of proof about it, that my ignorance is just as good as their knowledge) probably wouldn't make me look too bright. Indeed, from several posters we've seen more than a couple of hints that the driving force behind such views may be more about the appearance of some trans women and opinions on what constitutes a "real woman" than any kind of objective assessment.

I've enjoyed this thread not because of any "proof" that the international guidelines are correct or fair; they don't want or need my 'proof' and despite learning a thing or two I'm still woefully ignorant and utterly unqualified to really express a firm conclusion of my own (which says a little about the contrary claims and arguments which even I can pick apart). Rather I've enjoyed the thread because I've learned a little about the sound basis for the international sporting guidelines which reasonable folk should be inclined to respect already, whether they've learned about the basis for them or not.

 

[gino]

about the sound basis for the international sporting guidelines which reasonable folk should be inclined to respect already, whether they've learned about the basis for them or not.

We have cited studies which show that a guy who goes through puberty and then transitions keeps many of the male traits that would make them better athletes than a biological female.

 

[Batcat]

Should I? Not being good enough to get the first place ribbon, missing out on any freebies potentially associated with it and therefore having to go the same route as all the plebs? Talk about first world problems!

Who do you think should decide whether transgender students compete in high school sports events? I reckon that probably the best folk to make that decision are the high school sports organizations based on students' best interests and current evidence. Crazy, I know. It should be totally obvious - especially to self-proclaimed libertarians - that this is a decision requiring the full force of centralized federal government right up to the highest levels of the judiciary and Presidential Statements of Interest.

The girls were good enough to beat other girls but not males transitioning to girls. Give the transgenders their own division to compete in. If there is only one transgender in the sport he automatically wins first place in the transgender division but the girls are in a separate division so his win has no effect on them.

It’s a lot like the old saying that a good big fighter will defeat a good smaller fighter. (I realize there are exceptions.) Thats why we have weight divisions in the nixing and martial arts sports.

 

[joko104]

More of the Democratic Party's War On Women. Biden's view of women is their role is to make men sandwiches and otherwise STFU. All athletic trophies and money must go to men according to the new racist, bigoted and sexist anti-liberal progressive/fascist Democratic Party.

 

[ProgressPlease]

You are much better than the rest of us, of course. Although ironically, it seems that most other folk in the thread are at least engaging with one another, on some level, whereas repeatedly posting the same message with little variation and zero actual engagement might aptly be described as a kind of preaching.

I've made my arguments in past threads on the topic. I find lots of people simply debate this as a moral issue which it should not be. Either trans women have an advantage, on average, or they do not. The limited information we have to date shows they do have an advantage even while lowering their testosterone levels. The advantages have been listed many times over. There are issues of fairness and safety for biological girls and women.

At this point, I think it can be most helpful to post Martina Navratilova's website because her group has resources, including the studies, to show why it's important to be inclusive while also ensuring fairness. They have a balanced approach and it isn't politicized.

 

[Tiny]

Do you?
"taking estrogen still does not completely mitigate the physical prowess of trans athletes"
"It's not because they are not physically superior."
Those don't look like value judgements to me.

I didn't say those were value judgments. I said, "physical males should not be allowed to compete against biological females". This is the value judgment I am maknig.

By the way, do you still think that value judgments need to be "proven"?

Okay, looks like a little less certainty there, that's good. Did you enjoy the read?

No I haven't, and I most likely won't read it, because I have very scant training in science and I don't think I would be fit to interpret the results/conclusions..etc. But thanks for presenting it, and I think that you are trying to back your position with science.

"Common sense" has people claiming that the earth is flat. Common sense would suggest that a mighty male athlete surely wouldn't be made as weak as a kitten by something as trivial as someone coughing near them... and yet it happens all the time. So tell me again what common sense says about taking month after month of treatments specifically intended to mitigate or remove masculine characteristics, and why this 'common sense' is more reliable than actual quantified scientific studies?

I am not saying that we should just forgo science and just go by "common sense". The reason I bring up common sense is, like I said, I have little background in science and as such, I am probably unfit to derive any sort of valid conclusion from a study, so I think I need to avoid it. Instead I just rely on what appears to be common sense to me. You are still welcome to point out anything wrong with my line of logic.

And now, without having read any scientific studies, I will say the following: you claim that trans female athletes who have been following some sort of estrogen regimen for a long period of time, are performing on the same level as biological females, apparently because their bodies have been "sufficiently weakened" by estrogen. However, common sense tells us that, biological females also have estrogen in their bodies, and not only that they have it in their bodies for their entire lives, unlike the trans, who probably have it for like one or two years. And not only this, trans female athletes still have structural differences in their bodies, which you claim to be weakened enough by taking estrogen, however, biological females do not have these structural advantages to begin with, and if the trans are being weakened, then biological females should be weakened even further. The only way I think your position could be salvaged is that trans female athletes are on par with real females because they have been taking a higher dosage of estrogen. I know you did not claim this, however this is the corollary that must follow based on what you are saying.

And I know this is just thoughts on my part entirely, and it is not backed by any studies, however I believe my reasoning is still sound and I believe it merits consideration. I would hope that you won't simply throw it out the window. I want to hear what you have to say.

 

[diz]

I've made my arguments in past threads on the topic. I find lots of people simply debate this as a moral issue which it should not be. Either trans women have an advantage, on average, or they do not. The limited information we have to date shows they do have an advantage even while lowering their testosterone levels. The advantages have been listed many times over. There are issues of fairness and safety for biological girls and women.

At this point, I think it can be most helpful to post Martina Navratilova's website because her group has resources, including the studies, to show why it's important to be inclusive while also ensuring fairness. They have a balanced approach and it isn't politicized.

What are the odds that the best two female runners in the state of CT are born-male trans women if there is no advantage? I imagine the overall percentage of high school girls who were born males is rather low and the odds if there were no advantage of the best one being trans would be in winning lottery ticket territory, and the odds of the best two being trans by random chance would be in the 1-in-billions territory.

 

[Mithrae]

The girls were good enough to beat other girls but not males transitioning to girls.

According to the article you posted, this girl wasn't good enough to beat the other girls. She failed to qualify for the state finals; she wasn't even fourth or fifth or sixth in her state, let alone in the New England region or the country. Having a big whinge over the fact that two of the many better competitors happen to have been born with some different bits seems a little pathetic, quite frankly; perhaps encouraged by her parents in the certain knowledge that it would play well with and raise support from at least a quarter of the country's citizens regardless of the facts.

On the other hand, to be fair, it seems that one of these other two girls would not have met international guidelines on treatment/hormone levels for twelve months prior to competition in the female category, at least in some of her earlier races:
"Miller, as a sophomore, began competing in the girls' category after beginning to transition after her freshman year"
Some teething troubles and missteps are hardly unexpected as people and organizations come to terms with this changing world, and perhaps in this case the schools' sporting administration might have been better-advised to follow international guidelines instead. On the flip side, as BrotherFease posted earlier, even more ill-considered approaches like 'sex designated at birth' policies in Texas had trans boys obliterating those they were made to compete against in the girls' category. Openly advocating unnecessary segregation (in some cases likely promoted by the same folk who proclaim that black people also have an advantage in sports ) if anything seems even more problematic.

Give the transgenders their own division to compete in. If there is only one transgender in the sport he automatically wins first place in the 1transgender division but the girls are in a separate division so his win has no effect on them.

Your prejudice is showing in more ways than one.

Except in prize-oriented competitions, someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway. If you think the winning guy doesn't really count because he was on testosterone treatments and therefore you were the best 'real' man in the contest then good for you, consider yourself the winner! Needing the rest of the world to validate your opinion by creating a separate category just for the other guy seems a little odd. I mean granted there's medals or plaques or whatnot, which are nice and obviously a shame to miss out on just because someone else could afford better coaching, or ran earlier in the day with better wind, or had genes that gave them longer legs or whatever real or imagined advantages they may have had. But the simple fact is that most competitors are going to miss out on that plaque or those medals anyway... yet they manage to carry on with their lives.

It's almost as if someone else being better didn't actually make them worse or even hurt them at all. Given a rough estimate of prevalence in society, in the long run transgender athletes might be expected to win around one in a hundred competitions; if you imagine (contrary to available evidence) that trans women's supposed advantage doubles their likelihood of winning that would then be around one in fifty competitions being won by trans women... and in a couple of decades all of this fuss simply won't be a concern any more, since hormone treatments and transitioning before going through male puberty will be the norm. One in fifty competitions (give or take) having an 'unfair' winner for the next couple of decades, even if your assumptions and assertions were freely granted? Civilization will survive these changes, I promise you No need to get out the yellow stars.

 

[Tiny]

Except in prize-oriented competitions, someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway.

No offense but this "logic" doesn't make sense. So, in any kinds of sports, as long as there is no money involved, players can do literally anything, for example, doping, that allows them to beat everybody else in an unfair manner, and everybody should just be quiet about it because "someone getting first place has no real effect".

You are implying that the only time we should worry about fairness in sports is if there is money involved. No offense but this is a very warped view.

But the simple fact is that most competitors are going to miss out on that plaque or those medals anyway... yet they manage to carry on with their lives.

So what is the purpose of entering into a competition anyway? Someone enters a competition and she probably trains very hard for it. I guess her goal is not to win. I guess she just wants to run around or jump around in public a lot?

You are essentially saying, since losing a competition isn't that big of a deal (to you) and it apparently happens to pretty much everybody, we should just forget about the spirit of sportsmanship, and look the other way when some player has an unfair advantage.

 

[bomberfox]

But what if by the time they become adults, they no longer wish to be the other sex? This does happen.

But what if they regret having transitioned once they become adults? Their bodies now have been ruined by hormone-blockers and there are now unwanted secondary sexual characteristics that are in all likelihood irreversible. How do you expect them to be happy with themselves and live happily for the rest of their lives?

Hormone blockers have reversible effects.

 

[bomberfox]

I am not asking why trans people feel that they are trans. I am asking you whether the causes for transsexualism are strictly pre-natal, or could they be a combination of pre- and post-natal.

I never said I wanted to shun them or make them second class citizens. I also did not say that trans people will influence everybody else. I said people like you and Phys251 do that.


I can and do deal with trans people being out in the open. I just don't think we should cater to their every whim. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If you are a physical male and you want to participate in a female-only sport, don't be surprised when people tell you no.

Calling their existence diseased is shunning. Hate comes from that.

 

[Mithrae]

No offense but this "logic" doesn't make sense. So, in any kinds of sports, as long as there is no money involved, players can do literally anything, for example, doping, that allows them to beat everybody else in an unfair manner, and everybody should just be quiet about it because "someone getting first place has no real effect".

You are implying that the only time we should worry about fairness in sports is if there is money involved. No offense but this is a very warped view.


So what is the purpose of entering into a competition anyway? Someone enters a competition and she probably trains very hard for it. I guess her goal is not to win. I guess she just wants to run around or jump around in public a lot?

You are essentially saying, since losing a competition isn't that big of a deal (to you) and it apparently happens to pretty much everybody, we should just forget about the spirit of sportsmanship, and look the other way when some player has an unfair advantage.

There are always advantages and disadvantages, some key areas of which I explicitly highlighted such as having the money to afford better coaching, equipment and more time training, and having the right genes to get long legs or a sturdy frame or whatever's good for your preferred sport. Whether an advantage is fair or unfair is a matter of convention within the sport/organization; it's pretty universally accepted that certain performance-enhancing substances (eg. steroids, drugs) are better kept out of competition, while other performance-enhancing substances (eg. vitamins, diet) are acceptable. If you asked me to justify why money constitutes a 'fair' sporting advantage I'd have a pretty damn hard time doing so, besides the difficulties of removing its influence. Meanwhile having certain genetic or epigenetic characteristics describes transgenderism, intersex or hyperandrogenism quite aptly, and it is the range of human ability due to both genetic variation and training which is one of the most fascinating things about competitive sporting.

There is nothing 'unfair' about being intersex, transgender or the like - quite the opposite, in terms of life in general these people are very often treated unfairly by others. It's got nothing to do with doping to score the win, no honest comparison. As to whether it nevertheless constitutes an 'unfair advantage' in a sporting context specifically, the obvious and reasonable middle ground of hormone level requirements to mitigate or remove competitive advantages makes sense. But asserting that in these cases specifically - unlike long legs etc. - it suddenly becomes absolutely paramount to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that 100.00% of any potential advantage has been completely nullified and removed seems like extreme special pleading bordering on bigotry (and sometimes quite openly so).

Long and short, I'm saying that any athletes who want to complain about people winning because of their advantages have a hell of a lot of other advantages, far more common and often far more artificial advantages, that they can start focusing on before transgenderism should enter their sights; which suggests that it's not really about the supposed advantages and genuine 'fairness' at all, in most cases, but simply about seeing some easy targets to try and take out of the running.