wickerkat1212 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 3:53 pm
FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:45 pm
wickerkat1212 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:07 pm
Cool. Thanks. I personally don't think trans athletes in sports is an issue, as you won't find any men born female dominating as they transition, and I've seen very few women born men that have been successful crossing over outside of a few weightlifting examples. I've heard of some things at lower levels in wrestling maybe, but it seems to me it's a tiny percentage. But I know people have some strong feelings about it. The testosterone/estrogen levels have to be tested and in line, but that's not 100% either as there are some people who just have very high levels of hormones. I think there was a female track star, and didn't Phelps have very high levels? IDK. It's complicated, but I honestly don't really see it as an issue, but some people do. I'm not an expert. Though I am certainly derailing this thread LOL
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ ... s-debunked
The ACLU is an extremely biased source IMO. Lia Phillips, everything that went on in Connecticut with 2 transgender athlete's destroying a ton of different girls records within a few years. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests males that go through puberty have a biological advantage over their female counterparts, regardless of hormones. From red blood cell count, lung capacity, bone density, down to the shape of your hips due to the biological necessity for child bearing.
I know even some females test for high levels of testosterone, but the idea of biological males being involved in competitive athletics I have done a lot of research on, in part because of my sister, but I don't agree that it's a non issue. There are such a small percentage of people that transition and are or become athletes, but if all of us males transitioned, there would be basically no females left in female sports. There is a very real biological advantage to being born male, athletically, and hormones are only a small portion of that.
I also don't want to de-rail the thread further, but this was never a FF thread at all.
CNN biased too?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/nc ... index.html
50 out of 200,000 college athletes. As the article says, people don't transition for sports. They transition, because to do otherwise, is an existence rife with depression and suicide. I don't know what the answer is here. I have seen men transition to women and dominate, but IIRC it's very few people, but Lia IS an example. IDK. The olympics have one standard, NCAA has another. I want it to be fair, for sure, and I'm not sure what that looks like. It's a WIP IMO. I respect your opinions here, and I certainly don't have all the answers.
Not the argument I am making (but yes CNN is biased. At least a lot of us up here in Canada see CNN and Fox as Party affiliates. Main Stream News outlets are almost always certainly biased, that shouldn't be news
They all spew constant rhetoric and leading stories, let's not be childish ). Biological males, inherently have more advantages for sports. It's why Women's sports were created in the first place. If you are a biological male, you have inherent benefactors over your female counterparts, even after hormone treatment.
You're making an argument about things outside of the field, and suggesting a small minority of people be given an advantage over the majority (biological females) that weren't able to participate in the first place, and had the very creation of their sport due to that. Female sports were created because they couldn't compete in co-ed sports. If you add men to the equation they become irrelevant, and that's the point, despite the fact only a few people transition, they can still massively disrupt the sport in the region they are in, just like if all males transitioned and entered sports, basically no biological women would exist in that sport anymore. It's genetics, it's beyond ideology.
It really gets down to an ideological stand point, now. Prior, it was about sex based sports, because women weren't able to compete with men based on genetics. Now, we are re-determining what a woman is. So, is it based on feelings, and each organization then re-determines the level of biological changes based on scientific advancements needed to meet that? How far are people having to take what "becoming a woman or man is" when it was simply a biological fact at birth previous?
Biological woman are at the foreground of this. Some say it's "misogyny". The reality is there aren't records being broken by biological women transitioning to men, anywhere. It's pretty self explanatory, if you take a truthful, scientific based approach on the subject. Biological men have an inherent athletic advantage to biological women.
The problem with our culture, is we can't seem to discern between the things you spoke about, like speaking to the author in question who was attacked, who wants to be called a woman. I have zero issues with someone wanted to be called she,etc. in a social context.
The issue of being able to allow people to use social context to bypass biological realities can be problematic, as in women's sports, and prison, bathrooms etc. It's different dynamic, and biological women that have issues with this are being called bigots, and worse, and that is problematic.
The reality is IMO, there has to be a social and biological reality. In the case of sports, it's a reality that biological men have an inherent advantage vs women. The argument is, if we should allow people who want to transition into sports. There is social and biological realities at play here. I have no issues calling a person "she", in a social context, but I'd have an issue with her competing in sports vs my sister in the context of a scholarship on the line, for instance. Those two things aren't the same. One is social, on is biological. We have women's sports due to biology in the very first place.