School told girls 'transgenders have more rights'

[CLAX1911]

We have women’s sports so that women would have an opportunity to play varsity and elite sports because it was unfair to have women competing against men. That is why we have women sports. When biological women qualify against each other biological women for a varsity cross country team, they are competing against other biological women. That is fair.

How the **** is it fair to biological women in varsity cross country to have to compete against someone with a biological male’s heart and lung capacity?

It has nothing to do with bigotry, it is a question of fairness. When I went on testosterone cyp, I quit competing in races and duathlons because I had an unfair disadvantage due to having artificially higher testosterone and free testosterone levels. The fact that plenty of guys are still faster than me despite the testosterone cyp, does not change the fact I would have an unfair advantage.

As to you insinuating that I am a bigot, not one time have I misgendered anyone or talked about anyone who is trans in a derogatory manner. Not one time in my life have I ever treated anyone any different than the gender they identified as. This has nothing at all to do with bigotry. I am merely pointing out that someone who is a trans female has a potential unfair advantage in women's sports where vo2 max is a decisive factor.

He seems to reject the idea that men and women are fundamentally different than one another.

 

[Spock]

We have women’s sports so that women would have an opportunity to play varsity and elite sports because it was unfair to have women competing against men. That is why we have women sports.

Historically, women were excluded because women because they were considered too frail and would be injured by running, swimming, or other sports.

When biological women qualify against each other biological women for a varsity cross country team, they are competing against other biological women. That is fair.

How the **** is it fair to biological women in varsity cross country to have to compete against someone with a biological male’s heart and lung capacity?

It is fair because the transfemale is not an elite male.

It has nothing to do with bigotry, it is a question of fairness. When I went on testosterone cyp, I quit competing in races and duathlons because I had an unfair disadvantage due to having artificially higher testosterone and free testosterone levels. The fact that plenty of guys are still faster than me despite the testosterone cyp, does not change the fact I would have an unfair advantage.

As to you insinuating that I am a bigot, not one time have I misgendered anyone or talked about anyone who is trans in a derogatory manner. Not one time in my life have I ever treated anyone any different than the gender they identified as. This has nothing at all to do with bigotry. I am merely pointing out that someone who is a trans female has a potential unfair advantage in women's sports where vo2 max is a decisive factor.

It is inevitable that bigots will concoct explanations to justify discrimination. Your argument continues to be that ANY male is superior to EVERY female.
You should be looking for ways to be inclusive.

 

[rahl]

Prejudice and discrimination are very satisfying for those who are uninterested in fairness or equity.

A man competing against a woman is not fair nor equal.

 

[rahl]

Reality isn't just DNA. You should learn that, or is that just more stuff that you say about yourself like "I'm gay"

Reality is of course DNA. A man can not become a woman. It’s objectively not possible. A man is physically stronger, and has more endurance than a woman. These are objective facts. Those facts hurt your feelings. Reality doesn’t care.

 

[rahl]

They are female, despite the biology because you should have learned by now that the genitalia isn't the ultimate decider of a persons sexuality. You are trying to erase transgender people because of your own bigotry toward transguys and trans-females.

Nobody is erasing anyone. When you believe you are something you are provably not, you are delusional and you need help.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Historically, women were excluded because women because they were considered too frail and would be injured by running, swimming, or other sports.

It is fair because the transfemale is not an elite male.

It is inevitable that bigots will concoct explanations to justify discrimination. Your argument continues to be that ANY male is superior to EVERY female.
You should be looking for ways to be inclusive.

Quote me claiming every male is superior to every female.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Historically, women were excluded because women because they were considered too frail and would be injured by running, swimming, or other sports.

It is fair because the transfemale is not an elite male.

It is inevitable that bigots will concoct explanations to justify discrimination. Your argument continues to be that ANY male is superior to EVERY female.
You should be looking for ways to be inclusive.

He really handed you your ass IMHO.

You should learn something from Nov 5. Normal people arent buying that men are actually women if they really "feel" that they are. Thats just downright lunacy, again IMHO.

 

[CLAX1911]

Quote me claiming every male is superior to every female.

That's what he does when you make a point that he can't argue.

He's done the same thing to me.

 

[Spock]

Quote me claiming every male is superior to every female.

Your entire argument is that every female is inherently inferior to any male.

 

[Spock]

He really handed you your ass IMHO.

You should learn something from Nov 5. Normal people arent buying that men are actually women if they really "feel" that they are. Thats just downright lunacy, again IMHO.

Learn a little about transgender syndromes. Ignorance is no excuse for stupidity.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your entire argument is that every female is inherently inferior to any male.

No, that is your straw man. Your claim that I am arguing that every female is inherently inferior to any male is pure intellectual dishonesty. I have never made such a claim.

My argument is that biological males, in general, have a higher potential vo2 max than biological females, in general. Moreover, the studies we have on the trans females show that transitioning hormones do not completely eliminate that advantage. This is why allowing trans females to compete in women's sports where vo2 max is a major factor in performance in that sport, is unfair to biological women.

That has been my argument from the start in this thread. The fact that some women have a higher vo2 max than some men is utterly irrelevant. For example, if you test positive for performance enhancing drugs, you cannot appeal a WADA decision by arguing: "Yes, it is true I take EPO and Deca to enhance my performance, but there are some athletes that have a higher vo2 max than I do and can generate more watts without performance enhancing drugs, therefore it is fair..."

That would be seen as an absurd claim. The fact that Lance Armstrong doesn't hold the record for cardiovascular fitness and wattage output did not absolve him from cheating with performance enhancing drugs. Similarly, the fact that some women have a higher level of cardiovascular fitness than some men, does not change the fact that a trans women athlete has a potential biological advantage in terms of vo2 max than a biological woman athlete.

Finally, as I have argued previously in the thread. This doesn't even extend to all sports. While it is unfair to biological women for trans women to compete in women's running, cycling, and swimming sports. There is no unfairness at all in allowing them to compete in women's sports where vo2 max is not a significant advantage like most team sports (softball, lacrosse, volleyball and so on).

 

[Spock]

No, that is your straw man. Your claim that I am arguing that every female is inherently inferior to any male is pure intellectual dishonesty. I have never made such a claim.

My argument is that biological males, in general, have a higher potential vo2 max than biological females, in general. Moreover, the studies we have on the trans females show that transitioning hormones do not completely eliminate that advantage. This is why allowing trans females to compete in women's sports where vo2 max is a major factor in performance in that sport, is unfair to biological women.

You can spin that statement anyway you want. Your argument is that male physiology is superior and female inferior and you use that claim to justify complete separation of sports competition. Own the significance of your statements or clarity that some "males" can compete in female sports.

That has been my argument from the start in this thread. The fact that some women have a higher vo2 max than some men is utterly irrelevant. For example, if you test positive for performance enhancing drugs, you cannot appeal a WADA decision by arguing: "Yes, it is true I take EPO and Deca to enhance my performance, but there are some athletes that have a higher vo2 max than I do and can generate more watts without performance enhancing drugs, therefore it is fair..."

That would be seen as an absurd claim. The fact that Lance Armstrong doesn't hold the record for cardiovascular fitness and wattage output did not absolve him from cheating with performance enhancing drugs. Similarly, the fact that some women have a higher level of cardiovascular fitness than some men, does not change the fact that a trans women athlete has a potential biological advantage in terms of vo2 max than a biological woman athlete.

Every athlete has the "potential" for improved aerobic efficiency. Bogus.

Finally, as I have argued previously in the thread. This doesn't even extend to all sports. While it is unfair to biological women for trans women to compete in women's running, cycling, and swimming sports. There is no unfairness at all in allowing them to compete in women's sports where vo2 max is not a significant advantage like most team sports (softball, lacrosse, volleyball and so on).

All sports depend on training, ambition, endurance, state of mind, overall health, and skill. Your strange artificial separation for the "superior" male vs female issue is unsupportable intellectually and seems to be purely your need to exclude transgender participation. Aerobic performance is not the sole determinant of athletic performance in ANY sport.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You can spin that statement anyway you want. Your argument is that male physiology is superior and female inferior and you use that claim to justify complete separation of sports competition. Own the significance of your statements or clarity that some "males" can compete in female sports.

Every athlete has the "potential" for improved aerobic efficiency. Bogus.

All sports depend on training, ambition, endurance, state of mind, overall health, and skill. Your strange artificial separation for the "superior" male vs female issue is unsupportable intellectually and seems to be purely your need to exclude transgender participation. Aerobic performance is not the sole determinant of athletic performance in ANY sport.

You are engaging in pure intellectual dishonesty and mischaracterizing arguments. Pretty sad when someone has to resort to that. Good luck.

 

[Spock]

You are engaging in pure intellectual dishonesty and mischaracterizing arguments.

No mischaracterization whatsoever. You are denying your very statements and ignoring the consequences.

Pretty sad when someone has to resort to that. Good luck.

I regret you are unable to understand your own statements and the implications of those statements.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No mischaracterization whatsoever. You are denying your very statements and ignoring the consequences.

I regret you are unable to understand your own statements and the implications of those statements.

You have yet to quote any of these so called "statements" you claim I made that you are saying I deny. Either your critical thinking skills are lacking, or you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. There is no other alternative at this point.

 

[Spock]

You have yet to quote any of these so called "statements" you claim I made that you are saying I deny. Either your critical thinking skills are lacking, or you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. There is no other alternative at this point.

Can ANY transgender person compete fairly with women in running, swimming, cycling (or basketball, soccer, lacrosse, hockey, or beach volleyball for that matter)?
your statements:

Biological men have a vo2 max that is 15 to 30 percent higher than biological women.

You are missing the point. No woman has ever ran a 4 minute mile, yet 1755 men have. A typical college level male cyclist out performs the most elite professional women cyclists. It is unfair to biological women for them to have to compete against trans women in sports vo2 max is a determining factor.

top performing men out perform top performing women. If you qualify for the varsity cross country team, you are a top performer for your age and sex.

it simply isn’t fair to have trans female athletes competing against biological female athletes.

they still have slightly higher exercise performance as compared to biological women.

I am arguing that top performing men out perform top performing women

a trans woman even after hormone therapy has a small exercise performance advantage over a biological woman.

It will always be a case of the best trans athletes competing for slots against the best biological female athletes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Can ANY transgender person compete fairly with women in running, swimming, cycling (or basketball, soccer, lacrosse, hockey, or beach volleyball for that matter)?
your statements:

At no point in any of those quotes, did I make the claim that all men are more fit than all women. I made the statement that top performing male athletes outperform top performing female athletes. I pointed out that men on average have a vo2 max that is 15 to 30 percent higher than women. That would be true at all levels of fitness, meaning, an unfit man will have a vo2 max about 15 to 30% higher on average than an unfit woman. A fit man will have a vo2 max that is 15 to 30 percent higher than a fit woman.

I then pointed out, which seems to be foreign to you for some reason, that when you are trying out for a varsity cross country team at a competitive high school, only the top performers are selected. So, its only the fittest of girls at that high school that make varsity cross country. Which is why your argument is just plain stupid. The fact that fit girls are more fit than unfit boys is irrelevant. Fit people aren't competing against unfit people to qualify for the varsity cross country team, they are competing against other fit people.

So, at this point, we are left with either you are intellectually incapable of understanding the glaring flaws in your arguments, or you are being intellectually dishonest. In either case, I am done.

 

[Spock]

At no point in any of those quotes, did I make the claim that all men are more fit than all women. I made the statement that top performing male athletes outperform top performing female athletes. I pointed out that men on average have a vo2 max that is 15 to 30 percent higher than women. That would be true at all levels of fitness, meaning, an unfit man will have a vo2 max about 15 to 30% higher on average than an unfit woman. A fit man will have a vo2 max that is 15 to 30 percent higher than a fit woman.

...and based on that single claimed metric ANY males are better athletically than ANY female.

I then pointed out, which seems to be foreign to you for some reason, that when you are trying out for a varsity cross country team at a competitive high school, only the top performers are selected. So, its only the fittest of girls at that high school that make varsity cross country.

Lots of fit girls and boys do not try out for every or even any sport, so your presumption is incorrect. Furthermore, variations exist between schools. Your appeal to extremism is a fallacy. "Fit" girls may be more successful, equally successful or less successful than many "fit" or "unfit" males, yet you want to exclude ALL males.

Which is why your argument is just plain stupid. The fact that fit girls are more fit than unfit boys is irrelevant. Fit people aren't competing against unfit people to qualify for the varsity cross country team, they are competing against other fit people.

You have made unfounded assumptions about the populations of boys and girls in high school or college.

So, at this point, we are left with either you are intellectually incapable of understanding the glaring flaws in your arguments, or you are being intellectually dishonest. In either case, I am done.

It is patently obvious to me that you have extrapolated a single metabolic measurement in elite athletes to high school or college girls and boys and completely ignored a host of other factors that can influence athletic performance including HRT in transgender participants. You want to advocate for a prohibition that disregards individual factors that can better define competitive ability.

Do you know that women often excel in distance swimming and that a women was the first human to swim the English Channel after the world's elite male swimmers failed?

 

[Mika-El]

No they haven’t. Biological fact remains the same. A man can not become a woman. A man believing he is or should be a woman is by definition and diagnosis delusional. Pandering to those delusions does more harm than good for the afflicted. We don’t pander to someone who thinks they are Superman and can fly off buildings. And for good reason. Pandering to a man who thinks he’s a woman doesn’t do him any good either.

You state personal opinions not actual fact. For gender dysmorphia to be delusional it would have to cause the person with the condition to deny their actual birth genitalia exist. They do not. If they did they would have no need to get an operation to change them.

Rahl with due respect you do not understand what a delusional disorder is and you do not understand what gender dysmorphia is and choose and replace the two actual conditions with your own subjective misconceptions of what they are.

Next continually chanting the mantra that when some undergoes transgender transition they remain the same gender they were born as again reflects your subjective opinion and not actual fact. In actual fact when someone changes gender through today's gender transition treatments they do so biologically. The fact it has limitations, i.e., can not change certain bone structure, create the ability to produce children does not mean the person has not biologically changed to the opposite gender. You are confusing limitations of what can and can nit be changed with gender. The fact there are limitations does not mean there have not been biological, chemical, neurological, anatomical changes that align the transgender up with the sex they change to more than their birth gender after its done.

The reason your biological argument also makes no sense is that many women are born unable to reproduce or have the same limitations as transgender women.

In any event you keep repeating points I have clearly repudiated with no evidence to back your contentions other than to repeat your personal beliefs so I am done.

 

[Mika-El]

History applies here. Gay and lesbian athletes have been reviled in the past for the same psychological reasons often applied to transgender individuals.

While that may be true its also true that gays, lesbians, transgenders and straights all argue that the issue with transgender athletes is not their being transgender but any unintentional advantage that might give them in competitive sports and for that reason the argument to create a third competitive category for them.

I think that is the point. I of course agree with you that for some their concepts as to transgenderism like race, ethnicity, gender preference, can be based on bigotry based on ignorance and false stereotypes. That most certainly can overlap with notions as to what is fair in sports.

All I can tell you is on this topic on this forum I challenge those with what I believe are false stereotypes of concepts of transgenders that cause them to attack transgenders for being transgender but I also agree with those including gays, lesbians, straight people. who support the right of transgenders to be transgender but also point out and question that choice may cause issues when it comes to competitive sports.

 

[Mika-El]

...and based on that single claimed metric ANY males are better athletically than ANY female.

Lots of fit girls and boys do not try out for every or even any sport, so your presumption is incorrect. Furthermore, variations exist between schools. Your appeal to extremism is a fallacy. "Fit" girls may be more successful, equally successful or less successful than many "fit" or "unfit" males, yet you want to exclude ALL males.

You have made unfounded assumptions about the populations of boys and girls in high school or college.

It is patently obvious to me that you have extrapolated a single metabolic measurement in elite athletes to high school or college girls and boys and completely ignored a host of other factors that can influence athletic performance including HRT in transgender participants. You want to advocate for a prohibition that disregards individual factors that can better define competitive ability.

Do you know that women often excel in distance swimming and that a women was the first human to swim the English Channel after the world's elite male swimmers failed?

With due respect I believe you are challenging the person you address on statements they never made or stated but you assume they have, so I have intervened only on a friendly basis to point that out. I respect both you and the person you address for what you have stated.

 

[rahl]

You state personal opinions not actual fact.

I have not stated any opinions in this thread. It’s a biological fact that a man can not become a woman.

For gender dysmorphia to be delusional it would have to cause the person with the condition to deny their actual birth genitalia exist.

They do. They think they are or should be the opposite sex.

They do not. If they did they would have no need to get an operation to change them.

Rahl with due respect you do not understand what a delusional disorder is and you do not understand what gender dysmorphia is and choose and replace the two actual conditions with your own subjective misconceptions of what they are.

I understand it perfectly well.

Next continually chanting the mantra that when some undergoes transgender transition they remain the same gender they were born as again reflects your subjective opinion and not actual fact.

I have not provided any opinions in this thread. Only biological facts.

In actual fact when someone changes gender through today's gender transition treatments they do so biologically.

It’s not possible to change your sex/gender.

The fact it has limitations, i.e., can not change certain bone structure, create the ability to produce children does not mean the person has not biologically changed to the opposite gender

It specifically means they can not change to the opposite gender lol.

. You are confusing limitations of what can and can nit be changed with gender.

I’m pointing out gender can’t be changed.

The fact there are limitations does not mean there have not been biological, chemical, neurological, anatomical changes that align the transgender up with the sex they change to more than their birth gender after it’s done.

It’s not possible to change your gender, in any way. Just like if you have a tail surgically sewn on and hair transplant surgery all over your body, you didn’t become a dog.

The reason your biological argument also makes no sense is that many women are born unable to reproduce or have the same limitations as transgender women.

Irrelevant. Being sterile has nothing to do with your actual sex/gender.

In any event you keep repeating points I have clearly repudiated with no evidence to back your contentions other than to repeat your personal beliefs so I am done.

But you haven’t though. Because biological fact doesn’t bend to your ideological rants. A man can not become a woman. This is not in any way debatable.

 

[Spock]

While that may be true its also true that gays, lesbians, transgenders and straights all argue

No. All do not argue that.

that the issue with transgender athletes is not their being transgender but any unintentional advantage that might give them in competitive sports and for that reason the argument to create a third competitive category for them.

The hypotheticals make this argument unbelievable. Every athlete might, in some way, have an advantage over another athlete.

I think that is the point. I of course agree with you that for some their concepts as to transgenderism like race, ethnicity, gender preference, can be based on bigotry based on ignorance and false stereotypes. That most certainly can overlap with notions as to what is fair in sports.

We should error on the side of inclusion.

All I can tell you is on this topic on this forum I challenge those with what I believe are false stereotypes of concepts of transgenders that cause them to attack transgenders for being transgender but I also agree with those including gays, lesbians, straight people. who support the right of transgenders to be transgender but also point out and question that choice may cause issues when it comes to competitive sports.

The competitive sports under discussion are high school sports. Yet the arguments are likely based on select elite older professional athletes.
What would be your opinion if athletic black girls as a large group nationwide were shown to be 15% stronger and 20% better aerobic metabolism than athletic white girls nationwide. Would that justify excluding the black girls from high school competition?

 

[Spock]

With due respect I believe you are challenging the person you address on statements they never made or stated but you assume they have, so I have intervened only on a friendly basis to point that out. I respect both you and the person you address for what you have stated.

I respect your opinion and input. However. the problem is that a sweeping objection to transgirls merely because there is historic male genetics means that ANY male is inherently superior to ANY female.

 

[dairyair]

If I say I'm gay that's an adjective describing my sexual orientation. If I say I'm a woman that's a lie.

It's not the same thing to describe my sexual orientation and to lie about my sex. I don't know why you keep trying to connect us with homosexuality it's like you think it somehow gives it some legitimacy.

Speaking of lying.

But don't worry, a boy can't go to school and tell the coach he's a girl today and play girls sports.

Yeah they can.