First transgender athlete June Eastwood to compete in women’s DI XC this fall, has pbs of 1:55/3:50/14:38

This thread is the greatest thing ever to happen to this board. Traffic, man, traffic!

And so nice to see two or three new members talking to themselves.

You keep posting this link, but there is only one actual study cited, which is now 21 years old and is about how vo2max is inherited from your mother mostly.

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/59289-why-men-run-faster-than-women.html

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Gebremustard, - or whatever you call yourself - you are thick, as well as dishonest. I never said being tall was an advantage in running - I said being male is and - guess what? males are, on average, taller than females! But that isn't what makes them faster. It is that they are stronger, have more muscle, a bigger bone structure, less body fat, greater VO2 capacity, higher red-blood cell count - and all this on a consistently bigger frame; on average they are about 15cm taller than females, and several kilograms heavier. And that is just distance runners. And yet you have insisted that height and size must be a disadvantage in running. Clearly that doesn't apply when we see the difference between the sexes amongst runners - and they are many. That you cannot grasp this speaks volumes about your intellectual capacity. I regret I have to labour the point but your obtuseness makes it a necessity; it isnt their height that makes males faster; that is simply a correlation of the combination of physiological features that contribute to their considerable advantage over females. Those physiological features go way beyond higher levels of testosterone. But you haven't bothered to read the link that spells all this out in detail - or you have an IQ of 70, and simply can't fathom it. The one thing you do successfully demonstrate, however, is a capacity for reciting endless quantities of unrelenting and ignorant drivel.

---

---

RunRagged wrote:

---

oldmanstillrunning wrote:

---

MNRunner00 wrote:

I am a woman, liberal AF and I am vehemently against trans-women competing against XX women. It is amazing that June can live as her true self and I am happy for her. However, that doesn't translate into thinking it is no big deal for her to run against XX women. Honestly, I actually feel it is disrespectful to women by thinking it is 'okay' to compete against them while physiologically a man. Even with full surgeries and hormone therapy, there still are differences that would give them (transwomen) an advantage.

---

I completely agree. Every liberal female runner I personally know are vehemently opposed to this crap going on with trans-women competing against XX women. While the number of people participating in recreational running may still be on the increase, the interest in track and field and professional distance running is losing ground as a sport. Just look at the poor attendance at some of the recent premier NCAA Championship track events. June Eastwood's PB's are absolutely meaningless. The P.C. crowd wants them acknowledged. The allowance and acceptance for this transgender issue entering into the equation will ultimately lead to the death of our sport. How sad.

---

Hear, hear to you both. MNRunner perfectly sums up the POV held by me and all the other female-born women I know.

Sadly and weirdly, the MSM English-language press has abandoned girls and women on this topic. The only news outlets other than LRC that attempt to fairly report the issues at hand all tend to be conservative - or happen to be partly funded by the Russian government:

https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/462974-sex-segregation-water-crisis/

---

---

RunRagged wrote:

---

magggie wrote:

"People are freaking out because they don't like transgender people. They talk about them as if they are sub-human. That's what this is about at this point. June Eastwood hasn't done anything so far to suggest that she will blow away the competition."

I can't speak for anyone else but it's not that I don't like transgender people; this is a ridiculous notion and you are using a very broad brush to paint a large number of people on this forum who are against males colonizing female sports. For me, that's it, that's the issue, male and female. June is a male, competing against females. It doesn't matter what June's times are or whether or not June will "blow away the competition" or lose every time. Including males in female sports excludes females from their own sports.

But by all means, if you think that will help further your cause, keep trying to convince everyone that people "don't like transgender people" if they don't think it's fair for males to compete in female sports. It must be quite an effective tactic, as I see it used often. Call me "trans exclusionary" if you think that helps paint me as a hateful bigot, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Female sports by definition are exclusionary of males. This is just reality; it's the truth. If the truth hurts people's feelings, there's nothing I can do about that. I can't change reality nor do I expect female athletes to happily step aside so that males can take athletic opportunity away from them.

---

Agreed. And not all trans people believe that anyone who is, as you say, "against males colonizing female sports" is acting out of animus toward trans people. Many trans people know that standing up for fairness for biological girls and women and for female rights is not a sign of dislike, hatred, prejudice, "phobia" or "exclusionary" attitudes towards trans people, as this longtime transsexual explains

---

---

Dijon Gebremustard wrote:
all of the arguments you just made are in favor of june competing, not opposed. and for the record, i've never accused anyone of not liking transgender people unless they've explicitly said as such because it's a useless argument to make. i have used the word "trans exclusionist" in this context because it's accurate without being overly biased, some people want to include June in women's XC while others here (mostly liberals) want to exclude her from that division. i also have never said the word "bigot" again because calling people that is unconstructive without knowing them in person.

you're looking at the results, the effects, without looking at the root causes in science and not acknowledging basic scientific truths. the women's XC category was created so that males would not have an advantage over women. but what causes that advantage? as i've shown repeatedly here including in my post above, that advantage is wholly testosterone-based in distance running. so if testosterone levels are decreased to less than 3 nmol/L (remember that in many cases hormone therapy brings this less than 1 nmol/L), men are actually significantly disadvantaged compared to women in running. that's exactly why we should unite and pressure the NCAA to implement specific T+E level regulations and a method of verification similar to that used by the IOC, which is our most productive path forward here.

---

---

TrackGirl wrote:

Just to make this very clear: you are the liberal here.
And you are a "women exclusionist", because you want to include a man like Jonathan, which means a girl loses her spot on the team. Pure misogyny.

---

washington times republished the bozeman daily chronicle piece on june:

https://washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/29/juniper-eastwood-transgender-runner-compete-agains/

there was a thread about it but looks like it was deleted. it already had a few posts, personally i would have merged it with this thread rather than delete it. anyways here's what i was going to post there for a recap of the situation so far:

here are the facts that the article doesn't tell you: her recent workout logs indicate no better than 17 minute 5k shape (from a 14:3x 5K PR), and according to joanna harper she only finished 2nd on her team in a recent time trial. the reasons for this, again not mentioned at all in the article, are because June's testosterone suppression actually puts her at a significant disadvantage to the other women competing on her team.

the NCAA's current policy is a joke, and they should absolutely institute a required T and E limits with verificaiton -- in the range of 1-3 nmol/L for testosterone (according to joanna harper, many transgender women have T levels less than 1 nmol/L). June's performances and her logs show that she probably meets those limits already. what most people don't consider is that the differences between men and women as they pertain to distance running performance have always been hormonal, not musculoskeletal -- in fact, many of the typically "male" characteristics like increased height actually make you slower in distance races (which is anecdotally obvious among elite male runners) if not for the male testosterone which actually contributes to speed.

the ideal body type for distance running is female -- the only thing that makes women slower than men is their lack of testosterone, and the various body changes associated with that. the "male form" may be better in power sports like weightlifting and sprinting, but it doesn't carry over to distance running. that's why it's imperative to reform the ncaa rules to actually have specific limits of the most relevant factor here.

Hey, Dijon Gebremustard, can you please say the same thing for the 437th time on this thread? I'm not sure I've got it down yet.

---

Championship Experience wrote:

Hey, Dijon Gebremustard, can you please say the same thing for the 437th time on this thread? I'm not sure I've got it down yet.

---

---

Championship Experience wrote:

Hey, Dijon Gebremustard, can you please say the same thing for the 437th time on this thread? I'm not sure I've got it down yet.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

---

Championship Experience wrote:

Hey, Dijon Gebremustard, can you please say the same thing for the 437th time on this thread? I'm not sure I've got it down yet.

---

That's what rabid ideologues do.

---

---

Dijon Gebremustard wrote:

---

I am Sam wrote:

---

Dijon Gebremustard wrote:

---

Ahh...forget it

Was going to respond to your comments individually, but they are incomprehensible.

I have no 'liberal ranks' to break because I'm not aligned with any liberal group, don't sit around discussing the next PC move.
I don't even call Caster a 'she', because gender identification is bull crap. If life deals you the wrong cards, live with it like many disabled people who achieve great things despite their disability.

I have never read what caster's lawyers are saying so how am I agreeing with them? Simply saying that testosterone lowering should not be the criterium, it should be black and white down the lines of XX and XY, simple to achieve and impossible to manipulate.

You carry on about testosterone being the only thing, when you simply do not know what makes a male XY perform better than a female XY

cheers

---

my point was that if so many people like you are coming out and saying "i'm liberal EXCEPT i think june shouldn't compete!!!" then guess what: that position becomes the mainstream liberal position, not that of some "other" side.

this may be hard to understand at first, but the arguments for caster semenya and for june eastwood actually directly conflict with one another -- you can't be for both without contradicting yourself. that's exactly why i've always been in the semenya T regulation camp, and seeing as you seem to have the same opinion on semenya, you should also think that june should be able to compete.

Semenya's whole argument has been "testosterone isn't a performance enhancer, so i shouldn't have to suppress it just because i have extra naturally", while june's implied argument is "i should be allowed to compete *because* i have suppressed my testosterone". that's exactly why people like joanna harper were against Semenya competing un-suppressed while she's presumably in favor of june and other trans athletes competing as soon as the ncaa gets their act together and actually institutes specific T and E limits.

i would advise that you watch joanna harper talk about the semenya case here if you don't want to read the doc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_XZLfZrOVU

---

---

I am Sam wrote:

---

Dijon Gebremustard wrote:

---

I am Sam wrote:

---

Dijon Gebremustard wrote:

---

Ahh...forget it

Was going to respond to your comments individually, but they are incomprehensible.

I have no 'liberal ranks' to break because I'm not aligned with any liberal group, don't sit around discussing the next PC move.
I don't even call Caster a 'she', because gender identification is bull crap. If life deals you the wrong cards, live with it like many disabled people who achieve great things despite their disability.

I have never read what caster's lawyers are saying so how am I agreeing with them? Simply saying that testosterone lowering should not be the criterium, it should be black and white down the lines of XX and XY, simple to achieve and impossible to manipulate.

You carry on about testosterone being the only thing, when you simply do not know what makes a male XY perform better than a female XY

cheers

---

my point was that if so many people like you are coming out and saying "i'm liberal EXCEPT i think june shouldn't compete!!!" then guess what: that position becomes the mainstream liberal position, not that of some "other" side.

this may be hard to understand at first, but the arguments for caster semenya and for june eastwood actually directly conflict with one another -- you can't be for both without contradicting yourself. that's exactly why i've always been in the semenya T regulation camp, and seeing as you seem to have the same opinion on semenya, you should also think that june should be able to compete.

Semenya's whole argument has been "testosterone isn't a performance enhancer, so i shouldn't have to suppress it just because i have extra naturally", while june's implied argument is "i should be allowed to compete *because* i have suppressed my testosterone". that's exactly why people like joanna harper were against Semenya competing un-suppressed while she's presumably in favor of june and other trans athletes competing as soon as the ncaa gets their act together and actually institutes specific T and E limits.

i would advise that you watch joanna harper talk about the semenya case here if you don't want to read the doc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_XZLfZrOVU

---

Stop putting words in my mouth or labelling me politically to suit your incomprehensible views.

Guess what, I can think for myself, and as a scientist and engineer I understand the evidence. Just because I am not a red neck, anti migrant, climate change denier etc does not mean I am following a liberal ideology.

The Semenya and Eastwood cases are the same as far as I am concerned. Both are XY and both should run in the male open division, end of story.
The arguments about testosterone benefits and testosterone reduction, and the side effects are just used by whomever to suit their particular stances.

Eastwood is happy to reduce testosterone so that 'she' can compete as female.

Semenya argues against reduction because 'she' wants to dominate, with the full benefit of what that testosterone has developed 'her' to be and the help it will give, knowing that IAAF has not excluded anyone on XY or XX bases.

Simple, make it a chromosomal definition, end of story...you can continue the rubbish about testosterone being the only thing if you wish

---

I see that "science" is what Gebremustard agrees with, whereas explanations he doesn't accept are "spam". Of course.

But what he cannot grasp is that while testosterone is a significant feature that favours males it is also what has contributed to those numerous other physiological features that distinguish male from female. Lowering testosterone doesn't remove those features. If that were so, then males with reduced testosterone - such as occurs with older men - would effectively become like women. They don't.

Also, testosterone is not by itself a determinant of athletic ability. While it contributes to athletic ability the degree that it does so is still being debated by science. We see that males with the same levels of testosterone will have widely varying athletic skills. If testosterone was the be-all and end-all this would not be so. There is way more to athletic ability than testosterone levels. It is at best a crude arbiter of the differences between male and female, but remains an attractive argument to a mind already made up that cannot grasp complexity.

Nobody has to “name the woman who lost her spot” for us to accept that some woman lost something IF...

1) June makes the varsity team. A team has seven women. If June is one then some XX human isn’t. We don’t need to identify her.

2) June is receiving scholarship money. There are limits on how much can be distributed. If June is getting some, then someone else isn’t. We don’t need to identify her.

3) Every woman behind her in a race will have lost something (at least one place) and in some scenarios someone could lose All-Conference, etc. That person would be obvious to anyone who can read race results.

Whether the first and third events occur, we will all know. Whether the second is occurring we might never know.

---

RossiCheated wrote:

Nobody has to “name the woman who lost her spot” for us to accept that some woman lost something IF...

1) June makes the varsity team. A team has seven women. If June is one then some XX human isn’t. We don’t need to identify her.

2) June is receiving scholarship money. There are limits on how much can be distributed. If June is getting some, then someone else isn’t. We don’t need to identify her.

3) Every woman behind her in a race will have lost something (at least one place) and in some scenarios someone could lose All-Conference, etc. That person would be obvious to anyone who can read race results.

Whether the first and third events occur, we will all know. Whether the second is occurring we might never know.

---

Of course another man dismisses women's losses as "minute repercussions" that are okay as long as a fellow dude's feelings get validated and he gets more spotlight and praise.

---

Female, Legs Sometimes Run wrote:

Of course another man dismisses women's losses as "minute repercussions" that are okay as long as a fellow dude's feelings get validated and he gets more spotlight and praise.

---

---

Female, Legs Sometimes Run wrote:

Of course another man dismisses women's losses as "minute repercussions" that are okay as long as a fellow dude's feelings get validated and he gets more spotlight and praise.

---