Ross Tucker has produced the tweet of the year. An epic TAKE DOWN of transactivists trying to gain access to women's sports.

For sure you are correct. Rojo has admitted that he is a troll and that he feels he is a very skilled troll who is helpful in generating traffic here. Rojo clearly would spend hours discussing transgenders if he had a talk show and it was good for business, much like those TV shows like Maury Povich or whoever is trying to generate an audience. Rojo likely doesn’t give a rat’s ass about this transgender issue BUT he has realized that many of you would rather discuss it than have intimate relations with your partners.

I have already schooled you on this subject. Kenenisa Bekele won 8 Track Gold Medals and 12 World Cross Country Gold medals. He appeared to have an unfair advantage. Or an advantage, and who is omniscient to the point that they can ascertain the fairness of it all?

Bekele isn't even close to what we are talking about here. If he crushed everyone in the history of the world as a 15-year-old at his best events, and several longer and shorter events too, and never came close to losing until he was 50 or so, then you'd have a comparable "unfair advantage" to what men have over women.

What trans women who transition after male puberty have is somewhat less. Lia Thomas was 5-6% slower in her main event in 2022 than she was in 2019. Still, as in running, the like-to-like difference in swimming for men and women of the same level is about 10%.

What trans women who transition, never having experienced male puberty, have is less than that. It's probably still something. XY intersex people with CAIS appear to still have some advantage over cis women. However, they have also been allowed to compete in the women's division.

When someone is discussing advantages, and claiming this is the crux of the issue, then we can peel the onion and ascertain that this is not the issue. If a genetic freak of freaks was born and won for a couple decades you are now saying they perhaps would have to be banned from competition because it would be unfair. Armstrong is saying this. I am simply eviscerating the weak arguments.

You've got the mind of a worm, dude. Shouldn't the standard of evidence be higher that "idk man it just makes sense to me." Where's the scientific literature tracking the strength output of trans people, both athletes and normies, with regular tests throughout transition? If you had anything like that, I'd love to see it, but right now you're just saying "men are cars, women are humans and therefore..." and it's dumb as hell.

Were you this mad when Katie Ledecky was winning NCAAs in times that would have utterly destroyed Leah Thomas? No, because you're a pathetic loser and a hypocrite.

That about sums it up. This thread says more about the person who posted it than about the subject matter.

Where did he graduate from? Says something about there, too.

There's a reason nobody has anything to complain about with women "transitioning" to men and winning anything of note in the men's group. You can't depower a man enough to compete fairly against women, you can't empower a woman with all the drugs in the world to be on level with biological men.

And who should make the decision? Athletes themselves, or parents in the cases where athletes are minor? Or your Big Brother government?

Almost million teenage boys play CTE ball every year and endanger their brain health. Should the Big Brother government ban that dangerous sport in high school, and replace it with flag football instead? Or would that be government overreach?

much like most of the very ideologically-driven vomit from RunRagged, there isn't much support for either the specific position (eunuchs have advantages that suggest trans women would too), or the more general position (all trans women, regardless of androgenization, have advantages).

on eunuchs, here's one review of interest:

Clinical studies of patients with orchiectomy show an average weight gain of 10% that is generally localized in the abdominal and hip region, which increased patient risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Zitzmann and Nieschlag, 2001; Keating et al., 2006). Moreover, changes in the lungs and cardiovascular systems from hormonal changes decreased the ability for efficient oxygen uptake and blood flow throughout the body (Tsai, 1996), also likely resulting in decreased physical exertion. The retention of a boyish, high voice stems from low levels of testosterone during puberty, which prevents male-type laryngeal development (Jenkins, 1998). The dramatic decrease in sex steroids also leads to general loss of elasticity, with wrinkling of the skin, stiffening of joints, and decrease in muscle strength (Tsai, 1996).

so, you know, largely the opposite of the RunRagged position. but that's not particularly surprising.

Wrong. We're discussing *unfair* advantages, not merely advantages. It's obvious that the size of an advantage matters when considering its unfairness. Great as he was, the advantages Bekele had over his nearest competitors are not even close to what elite men, sub-elite men, or even elite high school boys have over elite women.

Do the math. Before Bekele the 10,000m record was 26:22. The women's mark was 29:31, almost 12% slower. Did Bekele run 23:33? That's the same percentage difference, from the previous overall world record. Did Bekele run 25:29? That's the same percentage difference as between that 29:31, by Wang Junxia, and -- from the US alone -- Rudy Chapa's 28:32 from 1976, in an event that hardly any American high school boys run.

The source matters as well as the size. Trans women who experience male puberty, as well as high-testosterone intersex people, acquire this advantage by being fundamentally hormonally different from cis women, that is, almost all women. Nowadays they can modify this, but it doesn't necessarily revert the athletic advantages they gained.

Reality and math show that a "genetic freak of freaks" as you describe doesn't happen for the overall human population (this is inevitable because most traits are distributed approximately normally or maybe log-normally), so I'm not concerned with it.

"Jeans and ties" ?? Nobody wears jeans and ties, yuck.

"have the balls" !! -- super funny considering the subject. Good stuff👏

.6 % ? No way. Is that a real stat? Seems high

You schooled nobody. If there weren't unfair advantages beyond differences in ability - which aren't unfair - there wouldn't be weight and age - or sex - categories in many sports. Your example fails.

I am not saying that - proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, because he actually lost a leg

Yes, because he actually weighs 225 now

Nope, because he is not actually a girl, he just says he is.

The dimwits in this thread confuse differences of talent and ability amongst the same group of competitors with the differences that occur when an athlete does not conform to the criteria that defines that group. Eligibility to compete is based on criteria aimed at ensuring fairness, which is why we see weight and age categories in sports - and of course categories based on sex. Within those categories there may be enormous differences in ability. Some competitors are very superior to others. Superiority of itself does not show unfair advantage; it simply determines the likely outcome. Unfair advantage is when an athlete does not conform to the approved criteria that apply to all other competitors, and has advantages they cannot have by virtue of the criteria that define or restrict their category. Males competing against females is one such "unfair advantage". Only those who deny male athletic superiority - or don't care about it - will accept as legitimate male participation in female sports.

Some digression. Where is the argument that eunuchs should participate in women's sport?

Huh? The paper you linked to is about males in various cutures historically and in the modern medical era who were castrated through complete removal of both testicles (which in most cases was done after puberty of adolescence).

The paper you cited says that adult human males who've had both their testicles removed develop specific telltale bodily characteristics that make them a bit different to - and physically less powerful, strong, healthy and fit than - other men who still have their testicles.

(This is true whether these males were made into enuchs after puberty of adolescence, as historically was the case in almost except for the Italian castrati - or before in the case of all the Italian castrati and in extremely rare instances every once in a while in other cultures like the example given of a highly unsual Chinese imperial eunch who appears to have been castrated at an abnormally young age.)

Specifically, compared to other men who still have their balls, castrated men will have more body fat, a different distribution of body fat, a greater propensity for diabetes, "metabolic syndrome," cardiovascular diseases and bone density issues that can eventually result in osteoporosis.

Moreover, due to "changes in the lungs and cardiovascular systems from [the] hormonal changes" that males go through after they are totally deprived of gonadal testosterone due to orchiectomy, surgically castrated males also develop "decreased...ability for efficient oxygen uptake and blood flow throughout the body" compared to other males who still have their balls.

But so what? None of this means that castrated male humans have the same physical features and capacities as female humans.

No one disputes that males who are castrated physically through removal of the testicles - or castrated chemically through use of drugs that prevent the testes from producing testosterone and sperm - end up developing some physical characteristics that make them a bit different to "normal" members of their sex and which will cause them to have somewhat diminished physical capacities in certain respects compared to other blokes who still have their balls.

As a result, castrated males might not perform at the same levels as other blokes in sports, or at the same levels they themselves performed at prior to castration.

But that's very different to the position taken by HobbyJogger and other men on this thread - and by WA at the present time - which is the postion I was challenging.

The stance of Hobby Jogger, and other blokes who share it, is that teenage and adult males who identify as trans and were chemically castrated through use of GnRHa drugs like Lupron before age 12 or Tanner Stage 2 of puberty of adolescence are so physically similar to female human beings that they should compete in girls' and women's sports.

Hobby Jogger and others on this thread contend, and keep insisting, that males who did not go through the testosterone-driven aspects of male development during puberty of adolescence don't have a single physical feature that would give them an unfair advantage over females in sports.

But as much as they keep insisting this is the case, none of them ever provide an iota of evidence for the extraordinary claim they are making.

The paper you linked to and quote from doesn't provide any evidence for that extradordinary claim either. It says that castrated males are a bit different to other males in ways that would put them at a disadvantage in sports competition against other blokes. It doesn't show that castrated males aka eunuchs are the same as females, or so similar to females in all sports-relevant respects, that they have no unfair advantage over females and therefore should be competing in girls' and women's sports.