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, you continue to push the totally false narrative that men are faster than women because they are larger and heavier than women, when in fact the exact opposite is true. men are larger than women on average due to biology, but these factors slow men down due to extra weight -- go to any long distance race and tell me how many "big frame" men you see in the lead pack. the ideal XC runner body type would be female, if not for the fact that women lack the testosterone that men have. to suggest that size is a factor that somehow advances your hypothesis is preposterous, it's the strongest argument against your point of view and every time you bring it up it makes you look more foolish.

now keeping in mind that trans women are at a severe disadvantage in long distance running due to their large size, i'll do you the charity of breaking down your other supposed "male-advantage running factors": - stronger & have more muscle: these are direct consequences of testosterone presence which in fact become disadvantageous as extra weight without the needed T to operate them. having vestigial muscles without the testosterone to keep them running is a huge disadvantage in distance running, yet another stacked against trans women. - a bigger bone structure: ah, the old "dense bones" argument. you remain totally oblivious to the fact that having heavier bones actually adds weight to the body and makes you slower! having dense bones might help in extreme power-based anaerobic sports like weightlifting, but in long distance running this is another disadvantage. - less body fat: finally, you're approaching truth here but your premises are all wrong. body fat is largely controlled on an individual basis, and again is largely affected by hormonal presence (or lack thereof). - greater VO2 capacity: again, you're looking at the results rather than the causal elements here. higher VO2 max is a resultant of testosterone presence, and removing testosterone makes VO2max decrease significantly to the point of disadvantage against women: "Hypogonadal (low testosterone) men had a signigicantly lower VO2max than eugonadal (high testosterone) men". - higher red-blood cell count: the presence of testosterone is known to increase red blood cell count, "An expected potential side effect of testosterone treatment is an increased level of red blood cells". like all your other points, you only consider correlations without looking at the actual causal variables.

funny how you've stopped trying to promote your original "evidence" study because you realized as soon as you posted it that it only served to back up my point, and now your alternative is this livescience.com commercial blog post that literally only exists to rack up ad revenue from you, which you've posted twice now.

lie after lie from the liberals who cannot admit that their ideological party is wholly to blame for the exclusion of transgender people. you should try looking at the actual science, and understanding the root causes of male/female performance differences in distance running. the difference that no mainstream TV show is willing to admit but is well backed up by science and common sense, is that *testosterone* is the primary performance enhancer in distance running, and the removal of testosterone to less than 3 nmol/L (or in many cases for transgender people, less than 1 nmol/L) actually puts male bodies at a disadvantage to born-female bodies. this is evidenced by June going from a 14 minute 5K to around 17 minute 5K shape per her running logs, and not just a one-minute gender-graded difference that we'd expect to see if the difference was even.

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.

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.

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.

TrackGirl, please continue to say while you continue to argue on the same side as every other self-admitted liberal in this thread. how can you justify that when the facts are plainly against what you're saying?

also, again with your lies, i don't want to include jonathan on the women's team and never have. please, TrackGirl, as i have asked you repeatedly to do before to no response, name the girl that loses her spot to june. you can't do it, because that person doesn't exist. june is allowed to compete on the women's team because she has a significant disadvantage to the other women due to having less testosterone than them -- and unlike you, i actually think this difference should absolutely be codified and verified specifically by the ncaa rather than their hastily put together rules at present. and guess what -- if you are the 21st best woman on a 20-person roster team DESPITE the 20th best person having a significant athletic disadvantage, to the point of going form a 14 minute 5K to 17 minute 5K shape at best in June's case (far worse than the age graded equivalent), then you don't belong on an NCAA division 1 women's team. perhaps you would prefer the millennial "everyone gets a medal" team where every hobby jogger is rewarded instead.

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.

that's fair. i say it a lot because some people here falsely characterize me or assume for example that i would be for allowing semenya to compete with high T -- so i'm just trying to clear up misconceptions for that much.

but the last post was something i was going to post in the wash times article thread before it was deleted. so as it was already written i figured i would post it here along with the article link.

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.

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.

funny, because last i remember you were the one who continued to link the same unsupported spam articles repeatedly, to the point where other LRCers had to call you out on it a few posts up. the moniker seems to fit you nicely.

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 used the same words that you use to describe yourself: "I may not be conservative, and support most liberal endeavours". your political views don't preclude you from participating in the discussion, and that was never the meat of my argument, but as you opened with the idea that your position on june was somehow not liberal like the rest of your ideology, i responded truthfully with the fact that actually, the position you describe is a leftist one per all the other self-professed liberals in this thread who came to your defense. your fence sitting by putting pronouns in quotes and using only last names here is not that helpful. anyways, to the main course:

semenya is intersex, eastwood is transgender. so you claim to have a standard for determining men or women athletically -- a chromosomal test. one example easily pokes holes in that, and that is that there are female athletes with XX chromosomes who still are hyperandrogenous with male levels of testosterone. under your definition, these people with for all intents and purposes male capability in athletics should be competing against women. shouldn't your "standard" for sporting categorization be based on the thing that actually is causally linked to better performance, and not an extra chromosome which is only a correlation, and a sometimes inaccurate one at that? my point is only that the line you draw is more arbitrary than my line, which only consequentially doesn't include June while my line does.

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.

And some male athlete gets a spot or finishes a spot higher. The same situation if a FTM trans athlete competed as a man.

Let the girl run if she wants. These are minute repercussions.

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.

Not “women’s losses.” I’m talking about one woman’s loss. It’s a 1-for-1 swap in every situation. You’re the one blowing it out of proportion.

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.

Exactly. To call missing out on scholarship money and/or making All-Conference a “minute repercussion” is terribly insensitive to the person losing it.