Transgender Connecticut Sprinter Accepted to New Balance Indoor Nationals

rojo wrote:

So according to the rules that means she's had a year's worth of hormones? I had never heard that. If that's true, then have her times slowed down a lot?

Can someone show me her times as a woman and as a man? IF she was on hormones, her times should go down by A LOT.

How did she do?

CHS does not have hormone requirements for transgender athletes. I'm not sure how much she is even taking though they say she is taking hormones. Her and Terry Miller.

The times seem consistent with last year and have even improved in the 600 meters indoors:

They may be taking hormones to satisfy some other competition requirements outside of connecticut. But she definitely wasn't on hormones when she first broke on the scene. A petition was launched to get the hormone requirement added but seems like nothing ever came of that.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810857-andraya-yearwood-knows-she-has-the-right-to-compete

In June, the petition began circulating. It called for athletes to run in the division based on the sex they were assigned at birth, unless the athlete had undergone hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

"It blew my mind," says Andraya. "People really started a petition to not get me to run."

Why are people using the pronoun “she” to describe a male who is taking hormones? He is still a male just as a male who drinks can be an alcoholic male, or a male who runs can be a runner male, or a male who doesn’t work can be a lazy male. Taking hormones may make you weird male or a feminine male but any scientific test done on the person would declare them to be males. It would make the world a better place if the left would accept science.

English major wrote:

Why are people using the pronoun “she” to describe a male who is taking hormones? He is still a male just as a male who drinks can be an alcoholic male, or a male who runs can be a runner male, or a male who doesn’t work can be a lazy male. Taking hormones may make you weird male or a feminine male but any scientific test done on the person would declare them to be males. It would make the world a better place if the left would accept science.

I call people whatever their gender identity is. There's a difference between sex and gender. He/she/etc are gender pronouns. Gender, not sex, pronouns.

Vince Matthews Fan wrote:

Good photo of the Cromwell athletes. Thanks for posting--I'm hoping you did so to counter some of the other posts in this thread. I'd call them misinformed at best . . . and many are worse than that.

Your post is problematic. Please expand on what about the photo counters the other posts and what specifically is misinformed. This is new territory, especially I'm presuming for the girls who were born girls who're racing against boys. Is it by looking at a photo we are supposed to tell which people in the photo used to be boys - with the attendant undisputed biological advantages - and that they now dress like girls, that clears up a lot?

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

English major wrote:

Why are people using the pronoun “she” to describe a male who is taking hormones? He is still a male just as a male who drinks can be an alcoholic male, or a male who runs can be a runner male, or a male who doesn’t work can be a lazy male. Taking hormones may make you weird male or a feminine male but any scientific test done on the person would declare them to be males. It would make the world a better place if the left would accept science.

I call people whatever their gender identity is. There's a difference between sex and gender. He/she/etc are gender pronouns. Gender, not sex, pronouns.

So a person's sex is what their biology determines, whereas "gender" - according to this approach of choosing your sexual identity - can, for some, be the opposite of a person's biological sex. Let's apply that thinking to race, for example; where a Caucasian says they "identify" as African-American (or, equally, the reverse). A person may even choose to identify with a non-human species ( and some do). Or I might say that I identify as a person taller, smarter or younger than I am. The politics driving this debate leads us into the realms of absurdity, where reality no longer plays any part in our understanding the facts or truth of the situation.

Armstronglivs wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

I call people whatever their gender identity is. There's a difference between sex and gender. He/she/etc are gender pronouns. Gender, not sex, pronouns.

So a person's sex is what their biology determines, whereas "gender" - according to this approach of choosing your sexual identity - can, for some, be the opposite of a person's biological sex. Let's apply that thinking to race, for example; where a Caucasian says they "identify" as African-American (or, equally, the reverse). A person may even choose to identify with a non-human species ( and some do). Or I might say that I identify as a person taller, smarter or younger than I am. The politics driving this debate leads us into the realms of absurdity, where reality no longer plays any part in our understanding the facts or truth of the situation.

You just pointed out how absurd all of this is. Being politically incorrect is just calling things the way they are. And that is exactly what you just did! The people that allow this travesty are pussies! And that is something that this competitor from Connecticut doesn't have!

And what exactly is at stake? the NBIN is a made up event. We managed to run high school track for years without it?

Having her in the race won't make anyone slower? it shouldn't change anyone's times.

But all the trumpers sure are triggered.

When someone commits a robbery and the clerk identifies the culprit as a black male, that is based on appearance. Some of you morons are stating that the person may identify as a white female. Male and female are defined at birth by a medical professional. Why don't liberals believe their doctors or science? It is irrelevant if they identify as a woman later in life. They are by the dictionary definition, a male.

You and the person you quoted completely missed the point. This goes way over your head. Unlike gender and sex, there is no pairing between race and another word that has closely related biological and psychological characteristics. Race is in isolation. While gender and sex are often paired. And no, you can't say skin color is the analogy to race, since there are thousands of shades of colors, with no 1-to-1 pairing with race. A brown skin person could be Indian, African, etc. Your skin color is non-deterministic as far as your race goes. Whereas your biological sex is roughly deterministic of your gender identity. So no, a black person saying they are white is not analogous to a biological male saying he identifies as a gender female. There is no binary relationship between race and skin color as I stated earlier. You could have white skin and both parents be black, or be sub saharan african dark, but be East Indian.

go gurlll wrote:

And what exactly is at stake? the NBIN is a made up event. We managed to run high school track for years without it?

Having her in the race won't make anyone slower? it shouldn't change anyone's times.

But all the trumpers sure are triggered.

You’re apparently too brainwashed by the looney left to understand what’s at stake, and it’s pointless to even attempt to educate you.

Gender is not binary. Who are you to tell me that I must choose from the 2 genders that you recognize? I believe that there are hundreds of genders. You must open your mind. You must be a right winger who only recognizes people as male or female.

Bollocks. But then you wouldn't recognise that term, because it defines gender. No one said here that skin colour directly equates with race - straw man - but it is a feature of race, and broad racial categories do exist. They aren't abolished because skin colour can fall upon a spectrum. But that isn't the point. It is only an example. What is fundamental is that a thing cannot be what it isn't. A monkey does not become a man - even if it thinks it is - or a dullard become a genius because he mistakenly assumes he is. Hence, your arguments don't become logically sound simply because you think they are. What you - or anyone - might imagine or "identify" with can be fanciful thinking, or just plain wrong. Like a man who thinks he is a woman.