Biological male 5th at Maine XC festival of champions in the seeded girls' category

Newname wrote:

chickle wrote:

And how would you know?

Because I am a sentient human being.

Please return to your Iran bashing

Newname wrote:

chickle wrote:

I don’t see why transwomen being taller on average matters when the intra-sex variation in height is already more than the inter-sex difference in the averages.

There’s little reason to think height matters in running, but if there’s a sport where it matters enough, it better be segregated by height categories like several strength sports are by weight categories, otherwise it’s unclear by what quantifiable metric it’s unfair. Is there any sport that considers Dutch participation as unfair?

Ever heard of testosterone?

Newname wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

How so? This particular trans person or trans people in general?

This particular person didn't ask for any special treatment. She just followed the rules like everyone else. If you don't like the rules, then try to change them.

A boy competing as a girl in an all girls race is not getting special treatment?

chickle wrote:

badergins wrote:

Acceptance means they have to put up with your daily whims, wants, and whines. It means women have to lose privacy, lose competitive balance, and lose equal opportunity (in sport). The world doesn't have to adjust to you; you need to adjust to the world.

This entire debate comes down to extreme narcissism and egocentricity.

So you are saying there’s no change they need to do compared to the actions they would’ve done anyway. Is there a physical action they have to do with “acceptance”? Are there loud noises or bad smells or horrible sights they have to endure? Or is it all just in your white knight mind on behalf of women?

GoodForHer wrote:

kiltedrunner wrote:

You're right, clogging up the thread with random examples doesn't matter to me because, in my opinion, early medical transition should:

a) be illegal and those responsible for it should be imprisoned.

b) not exempt a male from having to compete in the correct sex category.

This I agree with. Someone born male but identifying as female is a female, full stop no exceptions. That means they shouldn't have to do anything medical, just declare their preferred gender and you are that gender.

Nothing else matters.

chickle wrote:

Newname wrote:

Because I am a sentient human being.

Please return to your Iran bashing

Huh, I never bashed Iran. I quite like people from that country.

chickle wrote:

Newname wrote:

Ever heard of testosterone?

I take it you don’t disagree with anything I actually said.

chickle wrote:

not so fast homie wrote:

You continually ignore the very real evidence that medical transition doesn't even the playing field no matter how early it is started.

Really? How come trans runners are not clearing up global medals then? Not a single one. Zero.

What evidence makes you think the current rules are unfair to cis women as opposed to being unfair to transwomen? Is there some study showing that prepubertally transitioned transwomen with T < 2.5 for at least two years outperform cis women with similar training, diet, age, and other relevant control variables? Nobody even on this transphobic site thinks the current rules give trans- or even intersex women any shot at winning.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Newname wrote:

A boy competing as a girl in an all girls race is not getting special treatment?

Getting special treatment and asking for special treatment are two different things. This person did not ask for special treatment.

If the rule gave this person special treatment, then the problem is with the rule, not the person who benefitted from it.

OFOOS wrote:

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are arguing that men should be allowed to compete in the women's category, i.e. they should be allowed to break the existing rules. The burden should be on you to prove that it would not unfairly impact the existing women in the competition. Do you have a study showing early transition negates male advantage? If no, then men, which is what transwomen are, should not compete in women's athletics.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

not so fast homie wrote:

Nope - not the same by any stretch. Your response lack both thought and originality.

In order for it to be the same thing, black people would have had to have been asking to be recognized as white people, they weren't. Black people were asking for the same treatment. Trans people are asking for different treatment. Not the same at all.

A boy ran girls a race and got 5th.

Black people were asking for the same treatment as white people.

Transgirls are asking for the same treatment as cisgirls.

No perfect analogy for anything exists, but this one you have to admit is very very very similar.

Fast Girl Ruth wrote:

This thread takeover has been impressive!

Newname wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

How so? This particular trans person or trans people in general?

This particular person didn't ask for any special treatment. She just followed the rules like everyone else. If you don't like the rules, then try to change them.

A boy competing as a girl in an all girls race is not getting special treatment?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

OFOOS wrote:

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are arguing that men should be allowed to compete in the women's category, i.e. they should be allowed to break the existing rules. The burden should be on you to prove that it would not unfairly impact the existing women in the competition. Do you have a study showing early transition negates male advantage? If no, then men, which is what transwomen are, should not compete in women's athletics.

But the current WA rule states that trans women are allowed to compete if they started medical transition before puberty.

If you think the rule is unfair, then you need to convince them by presenting your evidence.