Paula Radcliffe Angered by New Boston Marathon Transgender Policy

Trans Boston dreams wrote:

Again what happens if I register as a female next year for Boston and run sub 2:30? What place do I get?

Do it... you won't. You'll play the what-if game and then do nothing.

Trans Boston dreams wrote:

Again what happens if I register as a female next year for Boston and run sub 2:30? What place do I get?

Also quick question do I have to use a qualifying time run as a female? My bq' time was run when I was still a man. Now I'm thinking top 10 at Boston sounds worth the change.

Do I get to start with elite woman?

Running a 2:30 marathon is impressive but for you it appears you believe people will be even more impressed if you can tell them you finished in the top ten in the women's division and that's assuming you're willing to have your driver's license identify you as being a woman. The reality is that people will be disgusted and it will cost you some friendships.

Right - so you are so short minded that you don't think that this, along with the situation happening with Caster Semenya, points to a potentially disturbing precedent that will impact womens sport as we know it in the future? Never crossed your mind huh? No I read the article, I just have a little more brain power at hand to think about the issue a little more holistically than just what's in front of my eyes on a computer screen.

I hope one day you will get there too "tryreading"

Ric

Caster Semenya is not a transgender female and is an extreme outlier that is unlikely to ever occur again

You are completely sure of that? Did you ever think that one day a guy with carbon blades acting as springs that replaced his lower legs would run in an able-bodied world championships and win a medal (Oscar P did in 2011 in the 4x4).

Did you ever possibly imagine that human kind would stoop to the depths of injecting themselves with substances that could potentially kill them in order to win at sports? (ask the families of the Dutch and Belgian cyclists who died because they forgot to wake up and take aspirin and ride training bikes to offset the increasing viscosity of their EPO thickened blood)

Even ask yourself 20 years ago (if you were even born) did you think we would get to a point where a 6-6 52 year old transgender woman would play community college girls volleyball vs girls almost a foot shorter.

It amazes me how confident people like you are of the "impossible" never coming to fruition - despite endless examples of the complete opposite having happened even in the recent history of society.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Ricardo Ruderatne wrote:

Right - so you are so short minded that you don't think that this, along with the situation happening with Caster Semenya, points to a potentially disturbing precedent that will impact womens sport as we know it in the future? Never crossed your mind huh? No I read the article, I just have a little more brain power at hand to think about the issue a little more holistically than just what's in front of my eyes on a computer screen.

I hope one day you will get there too "tryreading"

Ric

Caster Semenya is not a transgender female and is an extreme outlier that is unlikely to ever occur again

Congrats on pointing out the obvious. No she is not a transgender female but this issue isn't about whether one is transgender or not - it's about the chemical/hormonal/physiological elements attached with elevated testosterone exhibited in women like Semenya (which give her extremely masculine features such as muscle bulk, definition and facial hair) which are exactly the same in transgender females who exhibit exactly the same features given her fundamental biology (which is exactly why transgender women take estrogen to offset their natural elevated testosterone). I am utterly dumbfounded at how simple this concept is to grasp for people like you?

The extreme outlier unlikely never to happen again? Is that a joke?! Did you ever witness the dominance of Maria Mutola? Even if we retroactively disqualified Semenya from say, the Rio 2016 Olympics, you know who gets the gold? -Francine Niyonsaba and the silver goes to Margaret Wambui - two "outliers" right there also embroiled in this same controversy? What you are saying is absolutely idiotic mate and almost too easy to blow up it makes me feel bad doing it.

Muffet Top wrote:

Little Miss Muffet from Notre Dame is making all sorts of claims about bias in society and how unfair it is that men coach women's sports. colleges want to win so they probably hire best candidate. If she ultimately gets her way, she would probably bot have a job because there would only 1/2 as many jobs because there should be no separate team for women.

I follow women's soccer and running and find them entertaining. There should be no issue with either gender coaching either gender so long as they are knowledgeable and can motivate their athletes. If they want women's sports to become as big a business as men's, then they simply need to attend and view women's sporting events like men attend men's sporting events. Women make money too, they just need to spend it on sports if they want equality in sports. If women spent as much time and money watching their sports as men do theirs, then title 9 would be unnecessary. Miss Muffet's issue shouldn't be with men, it should be with women not spending their money on women's sports.

Sssddd wrote:

The problem is the arbitrary classifications that were created 100 years ago (women not being allowed to play against men).

There was a time when African Americans were not allowed to play in the NBA. That was crazy. Of course now the NBA is composed of 74% of African Americans (even though they only represent 12% of the US population).

Of course, a lot more caucasians would make the NBA if African Americans were no longer allowed to play, but that would be unfair.

The key take away here is that it's time to stop arbitrary segregation and allow women to compete equally against men. I think that the transgender movement will help this transition along.

We are in 2019, not 1919.

Although I normally take Paula's (and Ross Tucker's, and the Brojo's) stance, I could actually argue this in a debate class pretty easily. There is a sport. Anyone is allowed to compete. The best wins. Simple. Clear-cut. This is how early Greek Olympics were and NFL still is. A problem for Paula (she's minutes off the actual fastest ever run - ie the Open WR) and Ajee Wilson (who's already felt the impact of Y chromosomes being allowed in her event) and any WNBA players, etc etc. But not a problem for the gender fluidity non-binary-distinction crowd. We don't care how anyone identifies. We don't consider sexes and genders to exist. Just go run and whoever is fastest is fastest. Seems like the easiest solution!

Trans Boston dreams wrote:

Again what happens if I register as a female next year for Boston and run sub 2:30? What place do I get?

Also quick question do I have to use a qualifying time run as a female? My bq' time was run when I was still a man. Now I'm thinking top 10 at Boston sounds worth the change.

Do I get to start with elite woman?

I'm pretty sure you don't just get to register as a female because you decide one day to do so. I don't know how the BAA will confirm one's identity, but in many situations like this, a person would have a record of transgender identity that goes back a ways. If you tried to register as a woman, I suspect you would have to have a record proving your commitment to that identity. A person who is not actually transgender, but just trying to game the system, would be found out and prevented from doing so. This issue is not a slippery slope that will lead to those kinds of behaviors.

Transgender people do have rights that need to be honored and treated with respect. However, so do women who were born and identify as women. People want to point out outliers but there exists a clear and beneficial reasons for women's sport. How many biological women would compete in sports if there was no women's classification? After say 6th grade, with rare exception, very few would be able to compete on a men's team. Certainly in high school, it would be almost none. Now if you think that's progress for women as a whole then great but I don't. I know the argument that it will only be an occasional person, etc. etc. All we have to do is look at the pace of change in the last 5 years and it isn't far fetched to say that in 10 years somebody might decide it's not right or allowed to have women's classification for sports.

This world is becoming F*cKed up !

So....... What's the problem? wrote:

There is a sport. Anyone is allowed to compete. The best wins. Simple. Clear-cut. This is how early Greek Olympics were and NFL still is. A problem for Paula (she's minutes off the actual fastest ever run - ie the Open WR) and Ajee Wilson (who's already felt the impact of Y chromosomes being allowed in her event) and any WNBA players, etc etc. But not a problem for the gender fluidity non-binary-distinction crowd. We don't care how anyone identifies. We don't consider sexes and genders to exist. Just go run and whoever is fastest is fastest. Seems like the easiest solution!

And also the solution that guarantees women will stop doing all competiive sport (both 'proper' women and transwomen). All events that require pre-qualification - Olympics, world champs, nationals, Boston, etc. etc. - will be male only. Some women would continue to enter small/open meets and they'd exit after the first round, or for non-round events would be invisible in the results.

The media would cover the female competitors anyway, like an unofficial league within the overall event, because well, you would, wouldn't you, it's obvious - but to avoid lynching they'd end up reporting mainly on transwomen. They'd try to invent some reason for covering 'proper' women in the event, but faced with the activists' "transwomen ARE women" fury, it'd be too hard and they'd stop.

So, essentially no women in televised events ever again. Is that what you'd want?

So....... What's the problem? wrote:

Although I normally take Paula's (and Ross Tucker's, and the Brojo's) stance, I could actually argue this in a debate class pretty easily. There is a sport. Anyone is allowed to compete. The best wins. Simple. Clear-cut. This is how early Greek Olympics were and NFL still is. A problem for Paula (she's minutes off the actual fastest ever run - ie the Open WR) and Ajee Wilson (who's already felt the impact of Y chromosomes being allowed in her event) and any WNBA players, etc etc.

There should not be any gender division in a sport like distance running if the sport is to remain professional. Having a gender distinction to give out prize money is sexist - there is no debate about the matter. Virtually everyone who is running slower that Kipchoge in a marathon can claim that they have have some sort of unmutable genetic disdvantage therefore they should have a category for themselves so that they can compete fairly within their category. Besides someone like Radcliffe had a boatload of other advantages in terms of training facility, money, access to medical care etc etc etc compared with say a 2h 14 min marathon runner and yet the 2h 14 marathon still was the better runner and was not rewarded correctly by the sport. It's completely ridiculous that the sport has come to this situation but hopefully it will change at some point in the future - either become amateur again or get rid of age/sex categories when awarding prize money.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Identity politics is what is driving debate on this issue on both sides of the fence, regrettably.

I respectfully disagree. What interests me is a level playing field, which is impossible if men are simply allowed to declare themselves female and compete with women.

Mikeh33 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Identity politics is what is driving debate on this issue on both sides of the fence, regrettably.

I respectfully disagree. What interests me is a level playing field, which is impossible if men are simply allowed to declare themselves female and compete with women.

You took that comment out of context. It was made in response to this:

"I miss the good ol' days when people made their minds up on individual issues, instead of shouting down the other tribe. Pre Limbaugh, and Falwell et al."

Right and Left are both apt to play the tribal or "identity" card in political debate. This debate has certainly become political for some. My view in the issue of transgenderism on sports is the same of yours; that it is not a matter of identity.

As a basic human right we should be entitled to identify however we choose.

Ok, but why should everyone else be forced to go along, to reinforce what is clearly a fantasy, to the detriment of others.

Bruce Jenner did not become Caitlyn Jenner because she wanted to bring attention to herself.

You are probably right about Jenner, however I seen signs, however anecdotal, that people are beginning to declare themselves to be transgender because they have fairly normal adolescent angst, and the transgender pathway is immediately open to them as a “reason” for why they feel that way. Most psychiatrists will go along with anyone, including a minor, declaring him/herself to be transgender, either out of ideological belief in the LGBT agenda, or a fear of being public ally outed as a bigot. It’s not a healthy development for anyone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/561749/

“Heather said most of the resources she found for parents of a gender-dysphoric child told her that if her daughter said she was trans, she was trans. If her daughter said she needed hormones, Heather’s responsibility was to help her get on hormones. The most important thing she could do was affirm her daughter, which Heather and Mike interpreted as meaning they should agree with her declarations that she was transgender. Even if they weren’t so certain.”

Mikeh33 wrote:

As a basic human right we should be entitled to identify however we choose.

Ok, but why should everyone else be forced to go along, to reinforce what is clearly a fantasy, to the detriment of others.

They can identify how they choose. But their saying they are female doesn't by itself make them that. If they have a male physiology the medical profession will treat them accordingly, and not pretend they have a uterus and not a prostrate.

How you choose to see yourself does not require that others must see you that way. That is because you have made a choice, and others are similarly free to choose to see things differently. Your biology, on the other hand, is not a choice.

Well said.