Martina Navratilova nails transgender debate in her latest column

Sharon Davies got into it.

https://twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1102562082766159872/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1102562082766159872&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F44195%2Folympian-sharron-davies-warns-against-transgenders-amanda-prestigiacomo

This is good news, and I applaud Navratilova for speaking out against the oppressive leftists.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

"The majority (62.5%) of AYAs had one or more diagnoses of a psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability preceding the onset of gender dysphoria."

This is fact and science that leftists are too scared to talk about.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/06/20/new-paper-says-puberty-blockers-arent-answer-gender-confusion

"...80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will come to identify with and embrace their bodily sex."

Most children with transgender feelings will grow out of them anyway. It's not a natural instinct to want to change gender.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6760833/Ex-transgender-man-nipples-removed-believes-agender-alien.html

This transgender person now identifies as an alien. It is clearly a mental illness.

girl watcher wrote:

Urban B wrote:

She seems to be focusing on the fundamental question: Why do we separate sports (particularly at the highest levels) by sex? The answer is obvious: The best women can't compete with the best men. Why? Physiology.

Women's athletics is interesting because they are … well, women!

Martina has played the Occam's Razor card here. It is an easy decision for most intelligent people.

Our sport is often enough of a freak show with the drugs.

I'm sorry for the others but all of these biological 800M women have been cheated.

And that Texas wrestler...hell, I would have never believed that the great state of Texas would allow such a thing. Pathetic.

Allow such a thing? Texas isn’t allowing it, they are forcing it to happen. The kid has asked to be moved to the boys division, and the state won’t allow it.

Interesting perspective wrote:

And, yes, I understand that while the wide receivers were not as fast/tall/etc as other players, they were all probably considerably faster/stronger/etc than women.

Interesting perspective wrote:

The 1st video is a TEDx talk by John Brenkus. A point that Brenkus makes is that in sport, it is not always the biggest, fastest, strongest that succeeds. He gives the example of wide receivers in football. The top ones in history have not been the tallest, fastest or biggest. T/F and XC are more straightforward, though, so I would say that argument doesn't hold.

There are always exceptions but you can’t ignore trends. The fact that 5’3 mugs Bogues played in the NBA doesn’t mean that most woman are tall enough to play in the NBA. Could you find some 5’4 gal with the explosiveness, court precences and so on? Sure but we might be talking about a 1 in 100 billion person.

Would grouping by ability be good or bad for woman preprofessional? It would be hit or miss. Tougher competition would push them. But instead of being the star getting say 90% of the mins, they might be benchwarmer who gets 5% of the playing time.

Don't dudes usually do the "nailing"?

forpetessake wrote:

missing information wrote:

Both of these people are not fully transitioned, they are non-ops, they are simply "in name only".

If the problem is with people who are "in name only" then ban them.

Again, there is no athlete truly transitioned who is winning anything.

You can't name any because they physically cannot win so there aren't examples.

Any time you are ready to drop a name, google if they are post-op or not before you waste your time.

This entire "problem" is only because people don't understand the difference between "in name only" and truly transitioned (post-op) athletes.

Do we have to have some idiot trying the "true Scotsman" fallacy? Of course we do....

That isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy. The key component of a no true Scotsman fallacy is that the supposedly "not true" Scotsman is in fact a Scotsman. Simply saying that someone doesn't meet the requirements for being truly transitioned because they haven't had surgery is not a logical fallacy anymore than saying an eight-year-old human is not truly a fully grown human because they haven't gone through puberty.

Democrats lose again wrote:

Democrats are totally out of touch with the American people.

Democrats lose again!!!!

#WalkAway

Wily Roadrunner wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

Makes a ton of sense?

How so? So Serena WIlliams only plays in the local amateur tennis league?

Jenny Simpson is begging for a lane in the 5th heat of the high school nationals?

Every single women who is attending college on an athletic scholarship loses that scholarship so some mediocre guy can take it?

Brilliant plan for women.

While I agree with you, I will just throw out, as a devil's advocate position - For every single woman you can name who would be "screwed over" by the A, B, C, D levels paradigm one could argue that there currently IS one man getting screwed over by the gender-based paradigm. How is it obvious that the male tennis player who could crush Serena but is relegated to the local amateur tennis league after high school is not getting shafted?

Cannot advances in genetics help resolve this? I would get rid of the male/female competition divisions but then instead have divisions based on physical/genetic ability. There must surely now be enough genetic markers of performance for different events so that this can be applied. Doing this would be just developing further the philosophy behind gender division in sports which was made to account for differences in physical ability in competition categories.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Makes a ton of sense?

How so? So Serena WIlliams only plays in the local amateur tennis league?

Jenny Simpson is begging for a lane in the 5th heat of the high school nationals?

Every single women who is attending college on an athletic scholarship loses that scholarship so some mediocre guy can take it?

Brilliant plan for women.

Williams would be good enough to be ranked in the top 800, maybe even top 700. So she would still be a professional. Furthermore, had she competed against men her whole life, she would rank even higher.

No, Simpson should not be allowed to compete in HS competition. She does not attend HS.

Mediocre athletes should not get scholarships period.

Women only competition started at a time when it was thought that women could not run a marathon. That time has passed. It's now time to stop discriminating against women and allow them to participate in the open category.

A, B, C and D makes a lot of sense. That's what they have in cycling. No need to also segregate by sex/gender.

forpetessake wrote:

Do we have to have some idiot trying the "true Scotsman" fallacy? Of course we do....

You're OK with the "True Woman" Phallacy though, no doubt?

.

I give you an F

Paula's thoughts

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/paula-radcliffe-transgender-athletes-olympics-bbc-radio-4-a8807836.html

This makes sense. The Dutch experiment that Vera Pauw talks about, though, seems to indicate that this is not what happened. More would need to be known, though. Example: how exactly was it implemented... It seems like as they moved into more advanced ranks, the women were grouped together on one team but they remained associated with all male teams.

Adaaa wrote:

Would grouping by ability be good or bad for woman preprofessional? It would be hit or miss. Tougher competition would push them. But instead of being the star getting say 90% of the mins, they might be benchwarmer who gets 5% of the playing time.

What’s missing is proposed solutions from within the community. Do transsexual women who aren’t competitive athletes feel they would have no advantage against other women? I doubt it. My sense is that many would concede an advantage exists.

As did Renée Richards later in life.

Hi Dddf,

I hadn't thought of it this way and would have to say that I don't agree with your perspective. I don't think it would be a better outcome for women to have their only opportunity to be that of participating in the lower echelons of men's competitions.

I do think that what Vera Pauw was talking about was something different - it seemed to show a way in which girls and women could compete with boys and men but, at least as they advanced, also have their own leagues, categories, etc.

I see that this is a very complex issue. It brings up issues of fairness, opportunity, identity, etc. I see these as deep issues. I think the resolution will have to be something other than the straight up, across the board A, B, C, D categories I originally thought was a great idea. As I said, I like what Vera Pauw seems to be getting at - a way for girls and women to be able to compete with men but also retain their own autonomous leagues/competitions. I would like to see girls and women have the opportunity to realize their truest potentials. And I feel that we don't know at this time what those are.

Thanks for the conversation/debate.

Dddf wrote:

Williams would be good enough to be ranked in the top 800, maybe even top 700. So she would still be a professional. Furthermore, had she competed against men her whole life, she would rank even higher.

No, Simpson should not be allowed to compete in HS competition. She does not attend HS.

Mediocre athletes should not get scholarships period.

Women only competition started at a time when it was thought that women could not run a marathon. That time has passed. It's now time to stop discriminating against women and allow them to participate in the open category.

A, B, C and D makes a lot of sense. That's what they have in cycling. No need to also segregate by sex/gender.

PS I can't say that I have represented Pauw's experiment, vision or intentions correctly. Generally, I came away with the belief that Pauw believed that men and women could compete together. What I wrote below does not capture that.

I wrote:

I do think that what Vera Pauw was talking about was something different - it seemed to show a way in which girls and women could compete with boys and men but, at least as they advanced, also have their own leagues, categories, etc.

I, too, would love to hear Dick Van Dyke's take on this.

Just do away with the gender distinction for everything, man. Except with bathrooms. Women's bathrooms tend to be significantly more disgusting than men's rooms, and the lines are always longer.