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

---

SDSU Aztec wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

It would help if you sometimes thought things through. Since women cannot naturally produce male levels of testosterone a 14.30 guy is not a 17.00 woman. His testosterone, which a woman cannot naturally have, comes with being male. Conversely, a 17.00 woman is not simply a 14.30 guy without his testosterone. (That's quite apart from the other physiological advantages that males will have.) Nor do guys have oestrogen, female reproductive organs and everything else that goes with being XX. That's why we have separate categories of competition for men and women. Their "equivalence" of ability - such as it is - is in relation to their competitors, not to each other, and doesn't require the denigration of either.

One could go on; a 60 kg boxer is really an 80 kg boxer minus his size and a 50 year old runner is really a 20 year old with a few extra years; an elite runner is merely a hobby jogger with talent. Categories exist in sport because we aren't all the same, or of the same level. Ignoring that by allowing males to compete with females isn't going to help women's sport.

---

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. You lost me at:

"...~~~women do not produce testosterone..."

"men do not produce estrogen".

Read a book kid. Ignorant AF.

Your horrific attempt at a boxing analogy (to a real boxer like me) is nearly as ignorant. Go back to your WAW game son. You have a seat a the kid table. This is a conversation for the adults. *pat on the head*

---

I think he meant as much testosterone/estrogen. He is right though. We have categories and segregate sports for a reason. To base sport categories on how one identifies and not based on factual differences i.e. biological differences or in the case in boxing, weight divisions. You'll just end up destroying the sport. Imagine if boxing changed the rules to weight divisions to that weight which you identify as, not as the weight the scale says. What do you think that would do to the sport of boxing?

---

Yuh...I am sure he meant that....uh huh....

If you want to argue "fighting up" as a direct analogy, as ignorant of an argument as it is....a 60kg fighter can dominate an 80kg fighter by utilizing his strengths and minimizing the opponent's weaknesses (every fight ever). read a fucking book on Sugar Ray Leonard or Manny Paquiao, or Roberto Duran or Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns or Roy Jones Jr....just to name a few. You would have a more realistic chance of gaining ground in the debate by saying "what if a NASCAR decided to identify as an open-wheel F-1 car and enter the race...

Anyway...this has been fun. I have had more legit debates at Starbucks with Old Man River. Point being, Enjoy your life. Be nice to your sister because chances are you will need her couch after your first divorce. First person to get that reference I will Venmo you $25 right now.

~Kevin

Ridic,

---

Sounds like you have no experience in fighting. Size does matter. That's why they have weight classes.

---

Your point is irrelevant as a guy weighing 200 pounds claiming to be a welterweight has nothing to do with a transgender female competing in women's sports. It's a moranic analogy. It's as ridiculous as that poster who wanted to identify as a horse so he could compete in equestrian events.

---

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Sounds like you have no experience in fighting. Size does matter. That's why they have weight classes.

---

Ha! You clearly don't know me. That's obvious by your post. Good night kid. I will send your Mom down to tuck you in.

---

So while we get rid of women sports, should we get rid of weight classes too?

---

Are you a real human? Please tell me that nobody on this planet relies on your ability to reason.

Absolute waste of time. Might as well debate a child....maybe I am.

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

SDSU Aztec wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

It would help if you sometimes thought things through. Since women cannot naturally produce male levels of testosterone a 14.30 guy is not a 17.00 woman. His testosterone, which a woman cannot naturally have, comes with being male. Conversely, a 17.00 woman is not simply a 14.30 guy without his testosterone. (That's quite apart from the other physiological advantages that males will have.) Nor do guys have oestrogen, female reproductive organs and everything else that goes with being XX. That's why we have separate categories of competition for men and women. Their "equivalence" of ability - such as it is - is in relation to their competitors, not to each other, and doesn't require the denigration of either.

One could go on; a 60 kg boxer is really an 80 kg boxer minus his size and a 50 year old runner is really a 20 year old with a few extra years; an elite runner is merely a hobby jogger with talent. Categories exist in sport because we aren't all the same, or of the same level. Ignoring that by allowing males to compete with females isn't going to help women's sport.

---

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. You lost me at:

"...~~~women do not produce testosterone..."

"men do not produce estrogen".

Read a book kid. Ignorant AF.

Your horrific attempt at a boxing analogy (to a real boxer like me) is nearly as ignorant. Go back to your WAW game son. You have a seat a the kid table. This is a conversation for the adults. *pat on the head*

---

I think he meant as much testosterone/estrogen. He is right though. We have categories and segregate sports for a reason. To base sport categories on how one identifies and not based on factual differences i.e. biological differences or in the case in boxing, weight divisions. You'll just end up destroying the sport. Imagine if boxing changed the rules to weight divisions to that weight which you identify as, not as the weight the scale says. What do you think that would do to the sport of boxing?

---

Yuh...I am sure he meant that....uh huh....

If you want to argue "fighting up" as a direct analogy, as ignorant of an argument as it is....a 60kg fighter can dominate an 80kg fighter by utilizing his strengths and minimizing the opponent's weaknesses (every fight ever). read a fucking book on Sugar Ray Leonard or Manny Paquiao, or Roberto Duran or Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns or Roy Jones Jr....just to name a few. You would have a more realistic chance of gaining ground in the debate by saying "what if a NASCAR decided to identify as an open-wheel F-1 car and enter the race...

Anyway...this has been fun. I have had more legit debates at Starbucks with Old Man River. Point being, Enjoy your life. Be nice to your sister because chances are you will need her couch after your first divorce. First person to get that reference I will Venmo you $25 right now.

~Kevin

Ridic,

---

Sounds like you have no experience in fighting. Size does matter. That's why they have weight classes.

---

Your point is irrelevant as a guy weighing 200 pounds claiming to be a welterweight has nothing to do with a transgender female competing in women's sports. It's a moranic analogy. It's as ridiculous as that poster who wanted to identify as a horse so he could compete in equestrian events.

---

If what you believe what you are is what matters. Why stop at what you are as far as biological sex? Why can't a heavyweight identify as a lightweight? Why can't someone become a cow. Which is a actual disorder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boanthropy

---

Son....

I hate to do this to you because you are clearly getting your ass kicked left and right by pretty much anybody responding to you at this point.

However, if you are trying to argue that anything that is bigger and naturally stronger than something else because of genetics is reason enough to give up and assume that it should not be in the same category, then you better start praying to God that the first woman that you run into that you don’t have to pay to see you naked doesn’t follow that same rule. I’ll let you cuddle up with your body pillow at your mom’s couch and think about that tonight.

I’m. Here all weekend. Tip your waitress.

---

SDSU Aztec wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

SDSU Aztec wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

It would help if you sometimes thought things through. Since women cannot naturally produce male levels of testosterone a 14.30 guy is not a 17.00 woman. His testosterone, which a woman cannot naturally have, comes with being male. Conversely, a 17.00 woman is not simply a 14.30 guy without his testosterone. (That's quite apart from the other physiological advantages that males will have.) Nor do guys have oestrogen, female reproductive organs and everything else that goes with being XX. That's why we have separate categories of competition for men and women. Their "equivalence" of ability - such as it is - is in relation to their competitors, not to each other, and doesn't require the denigration of either.

One could go on; a 60 kg boxer is really an 80 kg boxer minus his size and a 50 year old runner is really a 20 year old with a few extra years; an elite runner is merely a hobby jogger with talent. Categories exist in sport because we aren't all the same, or of the same level. Ignoring that by allowing males to compete with females isn't going to help women's sport.

---

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. You lost me at:

"...~~~women do not produce testosterone..."

"men do not produce estrogen".

Read a book kid. Ignorant AF.

Your horrific attempt at a boxing analogy (to a real boxer like me) is nearly as ignorant. Go back to your WAW game son. You have a seat a the kid table. This is a conversation for the adults. *pat on the head*

---

I think he meant as much testosterone/estrogen. He is right though. We have categories and segregate sports for a reason. To base sport categories on how one identifies and not based on factual differences i.e. biological differences or in the case in boxing, weight divisions. You'll just end up destroying the sport. Imagine if boxing changed the rules to weight divisions to that weight which you identify as, not as the weight the scale says. What do you think that would do to the sport of boxing?

---

Yuh...I am sure he meant that....uh huh....

If you want to argue "fighting up" as a direct analogy, as ignorant of an argument as it is....a 60kg fighter can dominate an 80kg fighter by utilizing his strengths and minimizing the opponent's weaknesses (every fight ever). read a fucking book on Sugar Ray Leonard or Manny Paquiao, or Roberto Duran or Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns or Roy Jones Jr....just to name a few. You would have a more realistic chance of gaining ground in the debate by saying "what if a NASCAR decided to identify as an open-wheel F-1 car and enter the race...

Anyway...this has been fun. I have had more legit debates at Starbucks with Old Man River. Point being, Enjoy your life. Be nice to your sister because chances are you will need her couch after your first divorce. First person to get that reference I will Venmo you $25 right now.

~Kevin

Ridic,

---

Sounds like you have no experience in fighting. Size does matter. That's why they have weight classes.

---

Your point is irrelevant as a guy weighing 200 pounds claiming to be a welterweight has nothing to do with a transgender female competing in women's sports. It's a moranic analogy. It's as ridiculous as that poster who wanted to identify as a horse so he could compete in equestrian events.

---

If what you believe what you are is what matters. Why stop at what you are as far as biological sex? Why can't a heavyweight identify as a lightweight? Why can't someone become a cow. Which is a actual disorder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boanthropy

---

OK, there are millions of transgender males and females. Name one guy that identifies as a cow or wants everyone to accept that he is 60lbs less than he actually weighs. They can't be disorders if they don't exist.

---

You never answer simple questions. You just beat around the bush, say a whole lot of nothing and end up saying nothing. Than when people use the same logic as you when it comes to other areas i.e. if identification is what matters in gender why not weight?. You get mad.

It is a simple yes or no. Do you want to get rid of weight classes in sports like boxing and wrestling?

---

BergLaufer wrote:

You never answer simple questions. You just beat around the bush, say a whole lot of nothing and end up saying nothing. Than when people use the same logic as you when it comes to other areas i.e. if identification is what matters in gender why not weight?. You get mad.

It is a simple yes or no. Do you want to get rid of weight classes in sports like boxing and wrestling?

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

You never answer simple questions. You just beat around the bush, say a whole lot of nothing and end up saying nothing. Than when people use the same logic as you when it comes to other areas i.e. if identification is what matters in gender why not weight?. You get mad.

It is a simple yes or no. Do you want to get rid of weight classes in sports like boxing and wrestling?

---

---

SDSU Aztec wrote:

---

BergLaufer wrote:

You never answer simple questions. You just beat around the bush, say a whole lot of nothing and end up saying nothing. Than when people use the same logic as you when it comes to other areas i.e. if identification is what matters in gender why not weight?. You get mad.

It is a simple yes or no. Do you want to get rid of weight classes in sports like boxing and wrestling?

---

Put me down for no. If the heavyweight wants to chop off a leg or two make welterweight that would be OK.

---

Also, there is a condition in which people identify as disable. Do you support these people too?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria

According to the wiki article above, some get, "surgery to amputate the undesired limb". Do you support this too?

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Also, there is a condition in which people identify as disable. Do you support these people too?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria

According to the wiki article above, some get, "surgery to amputate the undesired limb". Do you support this too?

---

Here's a woman who identifies as black. Do you support her?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

If gender is based on what one identifies as. Why not everything else?

---

Used to be Moderately Fast wrote:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Pyne/publication/8474348_Factors_Affecting_Running_Economy_in_Trained_Distance_Runners/links/00b4951720d491935a000000/Factors-Affecting-Running-Economy-in-Trained-Distance-Runners.pdf?origin=publication_detail

This article, especially the flowchart on p. 7 of the PDF, is helpful for summarizing several factors that affect distance running. For example, looking at “limb morphology,” “tendon length,” and “muscle stiffness,” I’m not sure we have proper data to conclude that reducing testosterone will proportionately, or appropriately, level the field for transgender participation in female athletics. I’ve not seen anyone cite data addressing several of these factors.

The interconnectedness of our movement-related systems and the complexity of human physiology makes me skeptical when people rely on limited data to conclude, “Aha, we’ve done it and there’re no doubts remaining!” I think that jumping to sweeping, unequivocal conclusions about systems affected by so many variables, as human beings are, is premature. I’m not sure how we could ever know how June would’ve developed if she’d started as an XX female, which is the real mystery.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Firstly, Semenya is XY - as is June. They are both biological males. That Semenya is DSD does not change that fact. So they are comparable from that perspective.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Secondly, I am not implying that males could compete without reduced levels of testosterone - that is part of the argument for their participation - although some males might. Reducing testosterone is about eliminating a sex-based biological advantage. But what is not being understood is that this shifts the grounds for participation in women's sport from sex-based criteria, as it normally is, to standards-based criteria i.e. it is ok for certain males to compete against women if they have no advantage that XX women cannot have. Effective proof of that is they will be of a similar standard. That is the whole point of requiring reduced testosterone. On that basis, "identifying" as female is therefore not of itself sufficient to allow participation. This is what is being argued of Eastwood to justify his/her participation in women's sports. He/she will not be dominant, it is argued - whether that is true or not.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

But once you go down that path then there is no principled argument against allowing the participation of other males, even those whose testosterone levels have not been reduced, provided their performance levels don't clearly exceed those of the women they compete against. So a 1.55-2.05 male 800m runner should be able to compete against women of a similar standard. The whole basis of the "reducing testosterone" argument is to enable biological male and female athletes to compete without the males dominating. Reducing testosterone becomes redundant to that purpose if the males are of an equivalent female standard.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Indeed, if it is being argued that only males who "identify" as women should be able to compete in the women's category then other males could argue that it is discriminatory to exclude them, if they are either prepared to similarly reduce their testosterone levels or they are of an equivalent standard to the women they wish to compete against. Once we insist testosterone is key then the issue is no longer about "identity" but performance - and, there, gender is irrelevant. So, one way or another, we are headed to open sports - which is not quite what the "inclusivity" advocates had in mind.

---

---

trollism wrote:

We can't wait, sure it'll be fascinating.

---

---

tarckstar wrote:

Dijon Gebremustard, please shut up.

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Imagine all the high school boys who can only run 18 minutes or so for 5k, who can't get in to the school of there dreams. Just one simple change in identification can change that.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Gebremustard, your ability to misinterpret and mis-state continues unabated. I am not conceding to your vacuous spoutings - you bore me and I close the door on you as I would against any other tiresome evangelist seeking converts. That you interpret this as some kind of victory shows only how far departed from reality you are.

---

---

RunRagged wrote:

Fat chance he will, lol. At first I thought team Eastwood must be paying Gebremustard by the inch to unroll all that TP - but clearly they're paying him by the square.

---

---

Everydog wrote:

So there is a big effect on MTF testosterone reduction, but I get the impression that a lot of master runners taking it want clean masters runners to believe that Testosterone for old men is not a big game changer, so amazing times aren't suspect. I think this sort of kind of indicates that testosterone for older men makes them faster, a lot faster. Doesn't prove that anyone takes it, but if there is a lot of smoke around them there is probably fire.

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since women cannot naturally produce male levels of testosterone a 14.30 guy is not a 17.00 woman. His testosterone, which a woman cannot naturally have, comes with being male. Conversely, a 17.00 woman is not simply a 14.30 guy without his testosterone. (That's quite apart from the other physiological advantages that males will have.) Nor do guys have oestrogen, female reproductive organs and everything else that goes with being XX. That's why we have separate categories of competition for men and women. Their "equivalence" of ability - such as it is - is in relation to their competitors, not to each other, and doesn't require the denigration of either.

---

---

One could go on; a 60 kg boxer is really an 80 kg boxer minus his size and a 50 year old runner is really a 20 year old with a few extra years; an elite runner is merely a hobby jogger with talent. Categories exist in sport because we aren't all the same, or of the same level. Ignoring that by allowing males to compete with females isn't going to help women's sport.

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Are there any rules currently in place to ensure they take such treatment? Not only that, we don't know if this was just a tempo effort by her to get the sport light off of her. After all didn't Ryan Hall have low testosterone competing at the highest level as a man?

---

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are there any rules currently in place to ensure they take such treatment? Not only that, we don't know if this was just a tempo effort by her to get the sport light off of her. After all didn't Ryan Hall have low testosterone competing at the highest level as a man?

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

I think he meant as much testosterone/estrogen. He is right though. We have categories and segregate sports for a reason. To base sport categories on how one identifies and not based on factual differences i.e. biological differences or in the case in boxing, weight divisions. You'll just end up destroying the sport. Imagine if boxing changed the rules to weight divisions to that weight which you identify as, not as the weight the scale says. What do you think that would do to the sport of boxing?

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

So while we get rid of women sports, should we get rid of weight classes too?

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

If what you believe what you are is what matters. Why stop at what you are as far as biological sex? Why can't a heavyweight identify as a lightweight? Why can't someone become a cow. Which is a actual disorder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boanthropy

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

So a yes or a no?

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Not sure how common it is, but people believing they are a different animal is common enough or else it wouldn't have a clinical name. Here's the umbrella term for such condition

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

You never answer simple questions. You just beat around the bush, say a whole lot of nothing and end up saying nothing. Than when people use the same logic as you when it comes to other areas i.e. if identification is what matters in gender why not weight?. You get mad.

It is a simple yes or no. Do you want to get rid of weight classes in sports like boxing and wrestling?

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Thank you for answering the question clearly. Ok, one more time for Kevin. Do you want to get rid of weight classes in sports like wrestling and boxing. I just want a yes or no.

---

---

BergLaufer wrote:

Here's a woman who identifies as black. Do you support her?

If gender is based on what one identifies as. Why not everything else?

---

---

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

It would help if you sometimes thought things through. Since women cannot naturally produce male levels of testosterone a 14.30 guy is not a 17.00 woman. His testosterone, which a woman cannot naturally have, comes with being male. Conversely, a 17.00 woman is not simply a 14.30 guy without his testosterone. (That's quite apart from the other physiological advantages that males will have.) Nor do guys have oestrogen, female reproductive organs and everything else that goes with being XX. That's why we have separate categories of competition for men and women. Their "equivalence" of ability - such as it is - is in relation to their competitors, not to each other, and doesn't require the denigration of either.

One could go on; a 60 kg boxer is really an 80 kg boxer minus his size and a 50 year old runner is really a 20 year old with a few extra years; an elite runner is merely a hobby jogger with talent. Categories exist in sport because we aren't all the same, or of the same level. Ignoring that by allowing males to compete with females isn't going to help women's sport.

---

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. You lost me at:

"...~~~women do not produce testosterone..."

"men do not produce estrogen".

Read a book kid. Ignorant AF.

Your horrific attempt at a boxing analogy (to a real boxer like me) is nearly as ignorant. Go back to your WAW game son. You have a seat a the kid table. This is a conversation for the adults. *pat on the head*

---

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are there any rules currently in place to ensure they take such treatment? Not only that, we don't know if this was just a tempo effort by her to get the sport light off of her. After all didn't Ryan Hall have low testosterone competing at the highest level as a man?

That is not my comment. Wrongly attributed.

---

BergLaufer wrote:

If what you believe what you are is what matters. Why stop at what you are as far as biological sex? Why can't a heavyweight identify as a lightweight? Why can't someone become a cow. Which is a actual disorder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boanthropy

---

Any chance we can get the Cliff Notes to those posts on the last page? Or maybe just some pictures?

Kevin,

How badly do I need to annoy you to get the $1000 offer??? ;)

Seriously, I haven't had a chance to read every detail of this ridiculous thread, but I'd like to point out a few things.

1. There is another "in between" space for the argument. That is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for Jonathan to transition to June and live her life as a female, with the exclusion of competing against non transgender woman.

2. Do not confuse your online experience with June's. You made a few mistakes, and the corresponding public outing was probably an awful experience. To some extent June has asked for the publicity. Further, the discussion regarding the policy and how it will affect NCAA track/cross country is completely message board appropriate.

3. Many americans, and many young people, do not understand the idea of tradeoffs. It may be reasonable to expect that in the tradeoff of transitioning is competing at the NCAA level. We all make choices, and they have consequences, which in some ways are not "fair." As someone who teaches policy, I often tell students the pursuit of fairness is a fools errand.

l

One of the points I think is trying to be made is that making the field "equal" is very difficult. A trans basketball/volleyball player would certainly have bigger advantages than June. REcently a transgender cycling athlete dominated the velodrome, and her stature (5'11" and 195) certainly allowed some advantage.

Gender and Sexuality are not Binary, and these cases bring up some very interesting/serious discussions.