Transgender Athlete - Who Isn't Undergoing Hormone Treatment - Wins Connecticut Girls’ 100m And 200m State Titles

Xanax wrote:

Jordan Peterson wrote:

If you've been following the thread, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, the politically indifferent, and almost everyone else except for a very limited number of confused post-Modernist SJWs see a simple solution.

The girls' race is for girls.

Cool, you didn't answer the question at all. How is "girl" defined?

if you don't know the difference maybe you need to have "the talk" with your parents, or a kindly biology teacher can point it out to you.

This is an abomination.

She has a mustache, and her voice level appears to have already changed:

I understand where people on both sides are coming from, but sports is about competition and there are rules to make competition fair. This is the equivalent of saying lets race 800 and I may only run 750 and you run 800. It is like horse race handicapping. Kudos to her dad as a former college football player and running the local kids football program for being a good father and loving her unconditionally.

But when you look at the video you see in her workout she is not highlighting not pushing herself in the workout and her form is not as good as the other girls. So she is relying on higher density muscle fiber and genetics which would fail in the boys. Good luck to her. I think she should not be able to run as a girl simply because she identifies as such. Usain Bolt could just identify as a woman and then run another 30!years and win the 100 till then as well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EwlKwuC6LkE

I agree, this particular case, it seems clear that there are more male characteristics than female ones. But you can't just rely on an eyeball test as the unilateral criteria. 1) People have different definitions of what is "male" or "female", especially across different cultures 2) There will be people in the grey area.

Virtually all of those "other factors" (age being held constant) are due to hormones. The reason why men have an advantage over women in athletics is due to hormones. Hormone levels are not fixed at two points for the sexes; you can find someone at any level between the two extremes of hormone levels; biological variation is on a spectrum. So if the fairness comes from making sure boys (people with higher testosterone/other hormonal composition) are not competing with girls, where do you define those cut-offs for what hormonal composition is legitimate for a female race, and how do you assess it?

Again, I do not accept (and you must recognize society will not, either) the "they look like a boy" approach as a unilateral solution. It is 1) unscientific/open to flaws and gray areas, and 2) an unethical practice in profiling.

exthrower wrote:

Xanax wrote:

Cool, you didn't answer the question at all. How is "girl" defined?

Classic example of the false reality that liberals live in....Remember, all of this is a product of political correctness/liberalism....

So is it your position that there are little-to-no variances in natural hormone levels within each sex that could afford some people advantages over others?

Xanax wrote:So is it your position that there are little-to-no variances in natural hormone levels within each sex that could afford some people advantages over others?

Athletic competition is divided into 2 categories - male and female. This is because if there were only one category biological males would completely dominate athletics and exclude most women from any opportunity to participate in athletics. Intersex (not transgender) athletes present a difficult question because they aren't clearly male or female, but if you have 2 categories you have to have a dividing line. Testosterone levels is a reasonable if imperfect way of drawing that line.

There are obviously slipperly slope arguments that show that in some situations the dividing line between categories is arbitrary. There is nothing magical that happens on the day someone turns 18 that gives someone the ability to vote intelligently, drive or consent to sex intelligently at age 16, etc. Yet there is plainly a difference between a child and an adult if you compare a 5 year old and a 25 year old. Practicality requires a line between who's an adult and who's a child at an arbitrary age, even though the line is imperfect in individual cases. The same thing is true in dividing male and female categories.

Xanax wrote:

So is it your position that there are little-to-no variances in natural hormone levels within each sex that could afford some people advantages over others?

You are an idiot for saying hormones are the only difference between males and females.

This boy here is a cheater, end of story for anyone with common sense.

So Satisfying wrote:

Xanax wrote:

So is it your position that there are little-to-no variances in natural hormone levels within each sex that could afford some people advantages over others?

You are an idiot for saying hormones are the only difference between males and females.

This boy here is a cheater, end of story for anyone with common sense.

He/she may be an idiot, but the idiots are running the country and they drive the culture. If you can not defeat the idiots then you live by their rules. Who here can defeat Xanax in the public domain? Who would dare to try?

I'm not sure I believe that "intersex" really exists either. Apart from the very rare and physically disabling Klinefelter's and Turner's Syndrome (XXY and XYY or suchlike), humans are either XX or XY. All foetuses develop as female and then some develop as XY. Those developing as XY do so because of the development of primary sexual organs, including the testes. The testes produce more testosterone (amongst other hormones) which causes secondary male sexual characteristics. Genetic faults mean that some XY individuals are insufficiently sensitive to testosterone so develop (or fail to develop) physical abnormalities. I don't believe that an incompletely developed penis should entitle a male to run against females, nor should an individual who has been made to look female by surgery in childhood so as to make their life easier. Particularly when such individuals can still have as much as 10 or 12 times testosterone as any XX female has ever recorded naturally.

DiscoGary wrote:

He/she may be an idiot, but the idiots are running the country and they drive the culture. If you can not defeat the idiots then you live by their rules. Who here can defeat Xanax in the public domain? Who would dare to try?

You have no idea of my power. Arguing with him in public would be asinine and a waste of time. I would just troll him by claiming I am a woman and becoming "good" friends with his wife/girlfriend/daughter.

I think you are using your own definition of "intersex." It's a matter of objective biology that some individuals combine a mix of physical characteristics that are typical for either a male or a female of the species. How to fit them into a system of human rules that divides humans into only 2 mutually exclusive categories is a hard question, but you don't solve it by denying that intersex people exist.

Assuming you only have 2 categories, you need to have an objective rule that works in most situations. The former IAAF rule based on testosterone levels is accurate enough in most situations to be a fair and workable rule, even if it may be imperfect in some particular applications.

DiscoGary wrote:

He/she may be an idiot, but the idiots are running the country and they drive the culture. If you can not defeat the idiots then you live by their rules. ...

Idiots are indeed running the country. The Senate, the House, the WH, the SC, most state legsilatiures and governorships. It's a shame.

rojo wrote:

The future of women's sports is at risk. Title IX supporters need to realize this.

In other news today the sky is still falling.

Wtfunny wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

He/she may be an idiot, but the idiots are running the country and they drive the culture. If you can not defeat the idiots then you live by their rules. ...

Idiots are indeed running the country. The Senate, the House, the WH, the SC, most state legsilatiures and governorships. It's a shame.

Clearly they are not. The MSM, academia, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary are running the country.

Wtfunny wrote:

rojo wrote:

The future of women's sports is at risk. Title IX supporters need to realize this.

In other news today the sky is still falling.

So if you are the commissioner of a state athletic association and the question comes up, where do you side?

I know I'm going to rule that biological boys must compete with biological boys under Title IX.

Lawyers can fight it out if they want after that.

zohan wrote:

Wtfunny wrote:

In other news today the sky is still falling.

So if you are the commissioner of a state athletic association and the question comes up, where do you side?

I know I'm going to rule that biological boys must compete with biological boys under Title IX.

Lawyers can fight it out if they want after that.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Then, prepare your wallet, because the law still have the last word.

What are they going to do? Throw me in the women's prison and have me shower with them?

The underlying problem is that if sex is not based on objective biological facts but on the sex that a person chooses to identify as, for what rational reason should separate men's and women's sports exist?

There is no good reason to segregate men's and women's sports if the only difference between men and women is how one chooses to identify. It is no more justifiable than having baseball or another sport segregated based on race.

Why do women's sports exist? wrote:

The underlying problem is that if sex is not based on objective biological facts but on the sex that a person chooses to identify as, for what rational reason should separate men's and women's sports exist?

There is no good reason to segregate men's and women's sports if the only difference between men and women is how one chooses to identify. It is no more justifiable than having baseball or another sport segregated based on race.

Exactly. How ironic will it be if Title IX is used to destroy women's sports by trannys??