Transgender Olympians: The end of female sport?

Post Reply New Topic

You find it odd that concern focuses on actual examples rather than hypothetical ones? Though that would certainly explain your Straw-Facts.

There are no "former males." There are cisgender women and transgender women. You obviously don't understand transgender issues or what it means to be trans, but that sure hasn't stopped you from having an opinion!

Still refusing to answer for your own bad behaviour.

I call out hate when I see it. No apologies.

Looked in the mirror lately?

Clearly you have no understanding of how language functions. Former male is a perfectly sound definition of one who has transitioned, and generously allows for the fact that the subject identifies as female despite (typically) being biologically male. I'm under no obligation to accept any socially constructed genders outside of human sexual dimorphism (even those with intersex conditions have either an epigenetic disorder or a mutated blend of two genders rather than anything new) and yet I make concessions in much the same way as I expect my own condition to be given consideration.

Your asinine semantic arguments do not constitute evidence of my degree of understanding of transgender (which is quite extensive, incidentally), but they're certainly evidence of your own failings. That you've opted to nitpick based on spurious cherry-picking of definitions, rather than argue any of the points raised, speaks volumes. Frankly, you're coming across as little more than a troll at this point, and I doubt you have any intention of addressing the issues.



Luckily we have plenty of posters here who are equally vigilant in their calling out of BS. But by all means make further personal attacks and maintain your air of non-contrition. I'm sure you'll become a permanent fixture with that attitude.

The "alternative facts" I presented are a jest to point out a common denominator that invariably present itself.

An actual fact is used to advocate a remedy that is based on consequence.

A convict on early release commits a murder is used to argue that early release programs are danger to society.

The murder of a citizen by an illegal immigrant is used to argue that illegal immigration, regardless of the actual costs to society, is dangerous.

A male to female weightlifter wins a competition and the argument is made that male to female transgender athletes invariably have a physical advantage and therefore a competitive advantage, which could cause the end of female sports.

The common denominator is that the remedy/consequence is based an fallacious argument to consequence. It's an argument to fear not actual consequence.

When Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett dominated the middle distances (800m/1500m), it was argued that the difference in anatomy could explain why white runners held the world records over these distances. It was an argument based, in part, on anatomy. If the middle distances were to be suddenly dominated by North Korean runners before the 2020 Olympics, perhaps, an austere diet will be made responsible for their sudden rise.

I can already see the Runners World cover face: "The Austerity Diet Less Water, No Carbs!"

One question...is Drake a friend of yours?

Address the argument to someone who holds such a position then. It most certainly is not mine. In fact, how many people other than Mikah (who might be uncharitably interpreted as doing so) have even come close to making that argument? As I suggested, "Straw-Facts".

You've ignored the point I made about the IOC rule change in 2016 (the one which allowed Hubbard to compete as a woman). Though you're not alone in ignoring the actual points raised in favour of alternative strategies and narratives.

At times one cannot help but wonder how much of a vested interest each poster has in the actual subject matter of the thread.



I count nobody who frequents these boards as such. Why do you ask?

I simply expressed what I thought when reading the word "contempt". Your question to "relevance" seemed protective of Drake rather the defending the use of the word that's why I asked. In the process of analysis the possibility of "friendship" seemed a reasonable possibility, which, of course, it isn't now.

I did reply to your detailed breakdown of my OP; however, I failed to address you by quotation, which seemed illogical to me at the time (I'd be partially quoting myself) but I understand the necessity continuity of context now. I did not read the breakdown as if we are having a conversation. I was trying to address the fallacy of the OP not the various arguments of individual postings (e.g. the intent of "contempt") but find the effort more laborious than I would've thought. In my second post, I did mention the CAS decision in the Chand case, which I suspect might be indirectly responsible for the current position taking by the IOC. The IOC might have changed the rule simply to avoid litigation.

As to the use of "straw facts", it's either an accusation of fallacious argument on my part or a suggestive ad hominem on yours, the former a non sequitor and the later unwarranted.

My "alternative facts" and examples address the fallacy of arguing to consequence, which I have now addressed, to exhaustion.

I'd like to ask some of the posters here why you think we have gender divisions in sports at all?

It was "protective" of my own position. Expressing what you think, rather than trying to understand what Drake meant, is exemplary of a common problem on this board (and a common deficit in people with ASD). There is nothing wrong with Drake's use of the word "contempt" given the context he used it in. His reasoning was, well, reasonable.



Technically it remains a possibility, but it's pleasing to know you're not constrained by preconception.



Aye. There's an etiquette to forums that is counter-intuitive but which makes perfect sense in it's proper context and setting, and which becomes second nature as one practices it.



It may be laborious, but if you aren't willing to approach discussions in specific terms and to limit yourself to addressing those views which are actually expressed by individuals, it's quite likely you'll encounter more contempt, only directed at yourself. This is especially true if you take to making broad generalisations about a thread and its participants without providing supporting data in the form of examples in quotes.



Indeed it might have, which is a problem unto itself. If governing bodies of sports which segregate by biological gender prefer to change their rules rather than face discrimination lawsuits, we could well see a massive impact on sportswomen. After all, there's a political push for acceptance of dozens of alternative genders as having equal validity across the West, with Canada perhaps the most egregious example of how this has been taken too far already (the ease with which Lauren Southern had her legal identity changed also raises concern).



By doing so you're addressing a strawman as none of your "alternative facts" were representative of the views of any posters here (including, presumably, Mikah) regardless of any intended humour. The fallacious argument is in that comparative example which I quoted, in which you misrepresented an actual argument expressed by some posters as being universal rather than specific to Hubbard and presumably, by extension, anyone else who fits that mould. So no, it's not a non-sequitur.

Further, most of the arguments being made were arguing to actual real-world consequences, not hypothetical consequences, especially with reference to the Hubbard case. I don't believe it's fallacious to extrapolate the potential for abuse from that example. That is to say, we already have outcomes which are undesirable to many, so your argumentum ad consequentiam gambit is not valid.




I'm for removing gender segregation in sports, if only because I would take a perverse pleasure in giving people what they ask for in a manner in which they did not intend. While we're at it, let's do away with weight divisions in martial sports, to satisfy the demands of the body-shaming crowd.

About this:

The argument didn't start with this. It starts with comparing biological males to biological females and we should never have got to this point in the first place. It should be common sense. And yes, I would feel the same way about a female to male transgender entering a sport where the female body is the better body to have.

If the body doesn't matter, why has no female to male transgender done well against other males in a sport where males perform better than females? It won't happen.

Look who's going to resurface tomorrow...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/commonwealth-games/43688627

Honestly I don't think it's fair for the biologically-born women.

It should be examined case by case, or to create a third MtoF category.

"I didn't win last time, so that proves I don't have an unfair advantage".

Perfect logic.

I really don't think it's a big enough deal to make a fuss about. I'm not convinced there's good evidence that it's actually an unfair advantage. She's within the normal range of testosterone.

Perhaps testosterone is not a fair metric. If so, then let's find something that is, and scrap the idea of segregating by gender altogether. Instead, segregate by the meaningful, measurable biological metric, similar to how it is done in the Paralympics or boxing. Have multiple "tiers" which aren't tied to gender.