There are 75 users in the forums

Transgender in sports

Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
I would think to compete you should have 100% converted to the sex identifying. There will always be an advantage for some but that can't be fixed. If not converted you shouldn't qualify.

I can understand that thought process. You drew a simple line in the sand. But while i think many of them will later in life if they can afford it, I don't think you would be advocating for them to do that at a very early age.

What is there not to understand? You either have male anatomy or female anatomy. Why should any biological man be allowed to compete in physical sports with a biological woman that doesn't have the same physical advantages? It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

because you have to have empathy for other humans. Read my first post. If you can try and imagine how they feel, to feel that lonely and to be shunned and made fun of. We are talking a very small % of people. I am not saying they should or should not be allowed to compete. I am saying I can see why people wouldn't want them to, but i also recognize these are people who want to compete, belong, have friends, etc.

Why is it that you can't have empathy while still holding to your belief? Does the same empathy apply to people like Rachel Dolezel? How is that any different from being something that you're not? Shouldn't empathy apply to both examples of human beings that don't relate to who they are? While one example gains public support the other is publicly shamed.

Like I said, you can believe that and I understand. But you can also talk about this and show some compassion because these are real humans.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:
This. You are born male or female. It's genetic, and something you can't change just by adding or removing body parts. Your chemistry/ X/Y chromosomes are still the same.
1. Was John Bobbitt miraculously turned into a female when his wife cut his d*** off, and then miraculously returned back to a male when sewn back on?
2. Just because you identify yourself as the opposite sex, does not make you the opposite sex. You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You put a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a VW Beetle, it's still a Volkswagen.

When you talk about real people who feel different than other people and use this example, you don't have empathy. Its just a dick way to make a point. There are so many ways to discuss this without saying stupid s**t like jim did.

Just stating facts. I guess science is stupid to you.
Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by JimA49ers:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
I would think to compete you should have 100% converted to the sex identifying. There will always be an advantage for some but that can't be fixed. If not converted you shouldn't qualify.

I can understand that thought process. You drew a simple line in the sand. But while i think many of them will later in life if they can afford it, I don't think you would be advocating for them to do that at a very early age.

What is there not to understand? You either have male anatomy or female anatomy. Why should any biological man be allowed to compete in physical sports with a biological woman that doesn't have the same physical advantages? It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

This. You are born male or female. It's genetic, and something you can't change just by adding or removing body parts. Your chemistry/ X/Y chromosomes are still the same.
1. Was John Bobbitt miraculously turned into a female when his wife cut his d*** off, and then miraculously returned back to a male when sewn back on?
2. Just because you identify yourself as the opposite sex, does not make you the opposite sex. You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You put a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a VW Beetle, it's still a Volkswagen.

What about the Herms who are born with both parts? Then what, Jim? THEN WHAT?

What, the one in a million? The doctor make a best guess situation at time of birth THAT'S WHAT.
  • susweel
  • Hall of Nepal
  • Posts: 116,319
I don't really care.
Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by SoCold:
Well she's a Senior so I assume she's full grown. She competes against any guy in her weight class. Maybe I'll wait until they are full grown to ask them.

That's awesome for her. It's great that she's able to compete. Do you support her competing against boys/men in other sports?

Yeah it's cool. There are a couple girls on the team. A bunch of girl wrestlers in the conference.
Yeah, I don't give a s**t. The goalie on my nephews hockey team was a girl.

The issue for me is not what you two are describing. Its the opposite. There was a girl on the wrestling team back in the 90s when I was in HS. There was a girl who played offensive line at a high school near by. That isnt a problem for me. If they are physically able to handle competing with the boys, I welcome it. Some can.

Its when the opposite happens when I start to question the fairness to other biologically born females. To me, Fallon Fox crushing her opponents skull because Fallon was born a man and had a major biological advantage, is not something I can get behind.

I can see that.
My son wrestled a girl last year and her name was Silver Fox. Her brother was a heavy weight and his name was River Fox.

My first wrestling match in middle school was against a girl. I pinned her in like 5 seconds. I also had girls on my team and on the football team. I see no problem with that.
Originally posted by JimA49ers:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
I would think to compete you should have 100% converted to the sex identifying. There will always be an advantage for some but that can't be fixed. If not converted you shouldn't qualify.

I can understand that thought process. You drew a simple line in the sand. But while i think many of them will later in life if they can afford it, I don't think you would be advocating for them to do that at a very early age.

What is there not to understand? You either have male anatomy or female anatomy. Why should any biological man be allowed to compete in physical sports with a biological woman that doesn't have the same physical advantages? It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

because you have to have empathy for other humans. Read my first post. If you can try and imagine how they feel, to feel that lonely and to be shunned and made fun of. We are talking a very small % of people. I am not saying they should or should not be allowed to compete. I am saying I can see why people wouldn't want them to, but i also recognize these are people who want to compete, belong, have friends, etc.

Why is it that you can't have empathy while still holding to your belief? Does the same empathy apply to people like Rachel Dolezel? How is that any different from being something that you're not? Shouldn't empathy apply to both examples of human beings that don't relate to who they are? While one example gains public support the other is publicly shamed.

Like I said, you can believe that and I understand. But you can also talk about this and show some compassion because these are real humans.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:
This. You are born male or female. It's genetic, and something you can't change just by adding or removing body parts. Your chemistry/ X/Y chromosomes are still the same.
1. Was John Bobbitt miraculously turned into a female when his wife cut his d*** off, and then miraculously returned back to a male when sewn back on?
2. Just because you identify yourself as the opposite sex, does not make you the opposite sex. You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You put a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a VW Beetle, it's still a Volkswagen.

When you talk about real people who feel different than other people and use this example, you don't have empathy. Its just a dick way to make a point. There are so many ways to discuss this without saying stupid s**t like jim did.

Just stating facts. I guess science is stupid to you.

just stating facts? lmao you think the penis is the only thing that makes you a dude using your JWB analogy? That is the science you speak of?
JimA49ers could have used a different way to describe his points BUT he has valid points, IMO. Like it or not, a male body has an advantage over women body (generally). Male transitioning to female still have that clear advantage (in most cases).

Having said that, I don't know the right answer whether it should be allowed or not. Like Rubs, I see both points and don't know the answer.
[ Edited by kidash98 on Feb 11, 2021 at 10:04 AM ]
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by JimA49ers:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
I would think to compete you should have 100% converted to the sex identifying. There will always be an advantage for some but that can't be fixed. If not converted you shouldn't qualify.

I can understand that thought process. You drew a simple line in the sand. But while i think many of them will later in life if they can afford it, I don't think you would be advocating for them to do that at a very early age.

What is there not to understand? You either have male anatomy or female anatomy. Why should any biological man be allowed to compete in physical sports with a biological woman that doesn't have the same physical advantages? It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

because you have to have empathy for other humans. Read my first post. If you can try and imagine how they feel, to feel that lonely and to be shunned and made fun of. We are talking a very small % of people. I am not saying they should or should not be allowed to compete. I am saying I can see why people wouldn't want them to, but i also recognize these are people who want to compete, belong, have friends, etc.

Why is it that you can't have empathy while still holding to your belief? Does the same empathy apply to people like Rachel Dolezel? How is that any different from being something that you're not? Shouldn't empathy apply to both examples of human beings that don't relate to who they are? While one example gains public support the other is publicly shamed.

Like I said, you can believe that and I understand. But you can also talk about this and show some compassion because these are real humans.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:
This. You are born male or female. It's genetic, and something you can't change just by adding or removing body parts. Your chemistry/ X/Y chromosomes are still the same.
1. Was John Bobbitt miraculously turned into a female when his wife cut his d*** off, and then miraculously returned back to a male when sewn back on?
2. Just because you identify yourself as the opposite sex, does not make you the opposite sex. You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You put a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a VW Beetle, it's still a Volkswagen.

When you talk about real people who feel different than other people and use this example, you don't have empathy. Its just a dick way to make a point. There are so many ways to discuss this without saying stupid s**t like jim did.

Just stating facts. I guess science is stupid to you.

just stating facts? lmao you think the penis is the only thing that makes you a dude using your JWB analogy? That is the science you speak of?

Read further....I stated chromosomes X Y. In other words, the lack there of a penis does not change your sex. Try again.
[ Edited by JimA49ers on Feb 11, 2021 at 10:19 AM ]
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
A GOP governer wants to ban transgendered athletes from competing in sports as the gender they identify with. Basically saying it's unfair to biologically female athletes, and that it can destroy women's sports. Dem leaders are opposed, saying it's discriminatory.

Where do you stand?

Sounds like Big Government overreach.
Originally posted by kidash98:
JimA49ers could have used a different way to describe his points BUT he has valid points, IMO. Like it or not, a male body has an advantage over women body (generally). Male transitioning to female still have that clear advantage (in most cases).

Having said that, I don't know the right answer whether it should be allowed or not. Like Rubs, I see both points and don't know the answer.

agree he has a point as I stated up front, except his analogies were stupid and were not based on science like he stated. My point was just to talk about the issue without being a dick. Because its real people.

My other point is many people keep saying this is the death of womens sports which is also false. Its a very small percentage.
Originally posted by JimA49ers:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by JimA49ers:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by AceDuce49:
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
I would think to compete you should have 100% converted to the sex identifying. There will always be an advantage for some but that can't be fixed. If not converted you shouldn't qualify.

I can understand that thought process. You drew a simple line in the sand. But while i think many of them will later in life if they can afford it, I don't think you would be advocating for them to do that at a very early age.

What is there not to understand? You either have male anatomy or female anatomy. Why should any biological man be allowed to compete in physical sports with a biological woman that doesn't have the same physical advantages? It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

because you have to have empathy for other humans. Read my first post. If you can try and imagine how they feel, to feel that lonely and to be shunned and made fun of. We are talking a very small % of people. I am not saying they should or should not be allowed to compete. I am saying I can see why people wouldn't want them to, but i also recognize these are people who want to compete, belong, have friends, etc.

Why is it that you can't have empathy while still holding to your belief? Does the same empathy apply to people like Rachel Dolezel? How is that any different from being something that you're not? Shouldn't empathy apply to both examples of human beings that don't relate to who they are? While one example gains public support the other is publicly shamed.

Like I said, you can believe that and I understand. But you can also talk about this and show some compassion because these are real humans.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:
This. You are born male or female. It's genetic, and something you can't change just by adding or removing body parts. Your chemistry/ X/Y chromosomes are still the same.
1. Was John Bobbitt miraculously turned into a female when his wife cut his d*** off, and then miraculously returned back to a male when sewn back on?
2. Just because you identify yourself as the opposite sex, does not make you the opposite sex. You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You put a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a VW Beetle, it's still a Volkswagen.

When you talk about real people who feel different than other people and use this example, you don't have empathy. Its just a dick way to make a point. There are so many ways to discuss this without saying stupid s**t like jim did.

Just stating facts. I guess science is stupid to you.

just stating facts? lmao you think the penis is the only thing that makes you a dude using your JWB analogy? That is the science you speak of?

Read further....I stated chromosomes X Y. In other words, the lack there of a penis does not change your sex. Try again.

as I already stated, I am fine and agree with biologically born men not competing in women's sports. But there is no reason to talk about it like an ass. Its real people. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Originally posted by kidash98:
JimA49ers could have used a different way to describe his points BUT he has valid points, IMO. Like it or not, a male body has an advantage over women body (generally). Male transitioning to female still have that clear advantage (in most cases).

Having said that, I don't know the right answer whether it should be allowed or not. Like Rubs, I see both points and don't know the answer.

Current biological science tells me gender DNA manipulation does not exist on an entity that is already created. Therefore, the only gender manipulation is psychological and cosmetic. This is fine as we cannot change a person from feeling the way they do. HOWEVER, physical sports is based on physical ability that stems from biological DNA. Since DNA is the only way we can correctly measure gender, this trait should be the primary consideration in any gender-only competitions.

When it comes to competitions, hurt feelings should never be considered.
[ Edited by Joecool on Feb 11, 2021 at 10:23 AM ]
Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
Warning up front. Be careful what you say and don't be a dick about it. Act like an adult or don't post.

This isn't a comfortable discussion for some.

  • there will be people who see it as unfair for biological men who identify as females to compete in female sports. Dads with daughters will think about how their daughters worked so hard only to lose to someone with a genetic advantage. And I get that.
  • And I also see how this isn't a great situation for the person either. I can't imagine being a transgender woman and being forced to compete with boys or chose between not competing or being made fun of. So many a*****es making fun of people for being different. Not everyone is making it up. I really doubt the majority of transgender people woke up and said, you know...I think I will pretend to be a women so I can win the 100m HS state championship.
  • I don't think this ends female sports. That is people trying to grab attention. The reality is this is a very small % of folks. So be realistic at least.

For me, I don't know the right answer. I feel bad for the person and I feel bad for the girl who has to compete against someone who has a genetic advantage.

Excellent post
I'm all for transgender rights but I don't think it's ok for a transgender woman to compete against cis women. They have just too much of an advantage. You see it I'm mma you see it in track and field. Someone who is ranked in the 100s vs men is able to switch and dominate women's divisions
Originally posted by MoistButtCheeks:
make their own league

I thought the same. Not gonna happen!
Originally posted by kidash98:
JimA49ers could have used a different way to describe his points BUT he has valid points, IMO. Like it or not, a male body has an advantage over women body (generally). Male transitioning to female still have that clear advantage (in most cases).

Having said that, I don't know the right answer whether it should be allowed or not. Like Rubs, I see both points and don't know the answer.

I think the priority should fall on safety. There's always going to be competitive concerns but the biggest one should be protecting female athletes in close contact, highly physical sports like MMA, rugby and others. I honestly DGAF about something like tennis where I guess you can argue that the athlete transitioning has some sort of advantage but there's no risk to their opponents compared to a transitioned female like Fallon Fox cracking the skull of one of her opponents. You can obviously get hurt in a normal MMA fight but when you put someone with the anatomy and power of a former male in there with an average female fighter, the odds only increase that someone gets injured.

The issue with the "as long as the hormones are within range you're good to go" argument is that it ignores all the other advantages that come with being a biological male, starting with overall size, anatomical advantages(bigger, thicker bones, bigger hands, stronger tendons) and the simple benefit of having been exposed to high levels of testosterone. There are studies that have shown that just a single steroid cycle of testosterone can have near-permanent, lifelong benefits to muscle development and athletic performance. Now imagine someone bathing in the stuff for decades. You can adjust hormonal levels around but many of the advantages will still remain for a long time.

But even when athletes quit cheating, the effects of doping can have long-lasting consequences that extend beyond the damage to their reputations. According to experts who study muscle physiology, the use of anabolic steroids may lead to changes in the body that last for the duration of one's athletic career, and potentially even a lifetime.

The critical issue is how anabolic steroids (of which the most commonly used by athletes is a synthetic form of testosterone) affect what's known as muscle memory. Muscle memory is believed to be the reason why people who work out seem to bounce back quickly in fitness, regaining muscle strength and size, even after taking a break. There are a few possible explanations for how it works.

Unlike other cells in the body, muscle fibres don't divide, explains Stuart Phillips, a professor in the department of kinesiology at McMaster University in Hamilton. Rather, they rely on a population of cells, called satellite cells, that help regenerate and repair muscle fibres.

Anabolic steroids spark a dramatic surge in these satellite cells, says Phillips, who is the Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in skeletal muscle health. "It really switches them on," he says. "You become very, very efficient at repairing your muscles. So people who take steroids are able to tolerate higher volumes of work, they're able to put muscles under greater stress, and then recover much faster."

Once they increase in number, these satellite cells remain for a very long time, effectively for the rest of an athlete's career, Phillips says. Thus, he says, unlike other banned substances such as stimulants, which provide a boost that lasts only as long as the drug stays in the body, anabolic steroids continue to give athletes an advantage over their competitors, even years after they've stopped doping.

"If you're caught taking anabolic steroids, I think it should be a lifetime ban," he says.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/how-former-steroid-use-could-give-a-boost-for-entire-athletic-career/article31411504/

On the other hand, the younger someone transitions, the less likely of an advantage they are going to have. You have someone that starts transitioning as a teenager and that gap between biological female and transitioning male to female shrinks considerably, especially compared to someone like Hannah Mouncey. Maybe imposing age requirements could be something to look at?

Mouncey was a fully developed, pro level handball player as a male before she transitioned. Now she just flat out dominates females in handball and Australian rules football. She's bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than the average female. It'd be like LeBron James taking over the WNBA. To me something like really hurts competitive balance and is definitely unfair to female athletes who have been training all their lives but lack the inherent advantages that come with being born and developing as a male.




Then you have females that transition to male and some of them manage to become top level athletes while competing against natural born males so there's always going to be exceptions. You have someone like Patricio Manuel who transitioned and is now kicking other male boxer's asses. If you're a natural born dude and you get your ass beat by someone that was once a female, you got nothing to complain about just accept it and move on.

Share 49ersWebzone