Transgender weightlifter sparks criticism after competition win - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51989645]Im gonna point to this post next time someone tells me FP isn't full of far left liberals. How does a post like this go over uncontroversially? [editline]20th March 2017[/editline] There simply is no solution to the transgender athlete problem. Even if they started taking hormones at a young age (I don't think they should be able to until age 18 but whatever) there is still a measurable advantage in bone structure and musculature. They shouldn't be allowed to compete like this. I hope dumb stories like this stop popping up every week and sports don't get shat up with this nonsense.[/QUOTE] Can you like, just stop generalizing to stoke your own hateboner? 5 people agreed with it so far, 6 including the poster. Even then, a large portion of people sparked up discussion about it because they don't agree.

As far as I'm aware muscle mass will always go to that of the desired gender within a few years while on hormones. Bone structure obviously won't change for anyone who started past the low 20's but muscle sizes are never permanent.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51989681]I could just as easily say that certain well-built cis women have an advantage over other cis women due to their natural bone structure and musculature. What makes them any different from a transgender woman who transitioned early in their life and was on puberty blockers prior to that?[/QUOTE] I feel like a bunch of stuff does potentially. There honestly would have to be a study into the closest of cases to see the real differences present, but in a case like in this particular story, a huge amount is different to give a very different structure, no?

IMO, the burden of proof lies on those trying to argue that transitioned individuals are no different than those born as a woman.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51989753]I feel like a bunch of stuff does potentially. There honestly would have to be a study into the closest of cases to see the real differences present, but in a case like in this particular story, a huge amount is different to give a very different structure, no?[/QUOTE] I don't know what other quantifiable measures may impact sports performance, but ultimately the question is whether those lie outside of the reach of what cis women's bodies can achieve without the use of performance-enhancing drugs. [QUOTE=sgman91;51989768]IMO, the burden of proof lies on those trying to argue that transitioned individuals are no different than those born as a woman.[/QUOTE] The problem with this line of argument is that even among cis women, there is a huge variation in body types. This is related to the point I made above.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51989791]The problem with this line of argument is that even among cis women, there is a huge variation in body types. This is related to the point I made above.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the maximum level that a transgender individual can reach seems to be higher that that of a person born as a woman (assuming that we're only dealing with individuals at the top anyway). This is important because there are a very small number of people at the top of each sport. If a certain small number of trans individuals have a higher maximum potential, then they will fill all those spots.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51989801]The problem is that the maximum level that a transgender individual can reach seems to be higher that that of a person born as a woman (assuming that we're only dealing with individuals at the top anyway). This is important because there are a very small number of people at the top of each sport. If a certain small number of trans individuals have a higher maximum potential, then they will fill all those spots.[/QUOTE] I agree. It's a very unhappy situation overall with no clear answer.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51989801]The problem is that the maximum level that a transgender individual can reach seems to be higher that that of a person born as a woman (assuming that we're only dealing with individuals at the top anyway). This is important because there are a very small number of people at the top of each sport. If a certain small number of trans individuals have a higher maximum potential, then they will fill all those spots.[/QUOTE] That maximum level idea hasn't yet really been proven or disproven. It was only fairly recently that many sports organizations started to allow transgender athletes to participate, and this is potentially the 1st example of someone being so far ahead of the competition. As long as hormone levels are within range their shouldn't be any muscular advantages from being a transgender athlete, however differences in bone structures will persist.

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;51989900]That maximum level idea hasn't yet really been proven or disproven. It was only fairly recently that many sports organizations started to allow transgender athletes to participate, and this is potentially the 1st example of someone being so far ahead of the competition. As long as hormone levels are within range their shouldn't be any muscular advantages from being a transgender athlete, however differences in bone structures will persist.[/QUOTE] That's why I said the burden of proof lies on those trying to make the argument to allow. It would need to be shown that allowing trans individuals would not measurably change the sports in question. I highly doubt that to be the case since we are already seeing trans individuals reach the top level of their sports, even with the extremely small pool of people who fit into that category.

[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51989523]Ah, Yes! The classic of "You'll never be a real [gender]"! Gosh, you sure help me cope with the crushing burden of knowing the skin I live in is a false approximation of what I really wish I was! You really, really make my life easier! Gosh it's like that's why it's fucking soul destroying to be trans.. Really Makes U Think..[/QUOTE] That's not what this is, and you know it.

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;51989900]That maximum level idea hasn't yet really been proven or disproven. It was only fairly recently that many sports organizations started to allow transgender athletes to participate, and this is potentially the 1st example of someone being so far ahead of the competition. As long as hormone levels are within range their shouldn't be any muscular advantages from being a transgender athlete, however differences in bone structures will persist.[/QUOTE] So, there's no way to measure it or anything like that as far as sports go, but hormones affect muscle density and quality, especially during puberty. Male muscle is more dense and more capable than female muscle because muscle subjected to more androgens develops at a higher quality. This is why females who get into powerlifting/bodybuilding can use AAS and despite having hormone levels higher than the average male and being fucking shredded and huge as fuck, still be generally weaker than males. Dana Linn Bailey has been on hormones for years, is swimming in more gear than even some amateur bodybuilders, but despite walking around at 150lbs or so, only benches around 225lbs for a max. A 1.5x bodyweight bench press is generally considered to be the point where a male stops being considered a novice lifter. A lot of people think it's easy to "lose" muscle, but it really isn't. If you are huge and shredded but then go on hormones or whatever to transition to female, your muscles will shrink in size as they dump glycogen deposits and shrink fibers, but the muscle cells themselves will remain. This is why it's much, much easier for people who had muscle to regain it than it is for someone to gain it from square one. Your body doesn't destroy existing muscle cells except in extreme circumstances, like you're completely immobilized for a long period of time or starving. This leads to someone who was male during puberty, the time when your body is swimming in growth hormone which is directed toward building muscle and fat based on hormone composition, to have a distinct advantage over born-female athletes because it is highly likely she has more muscle cells and therefore a greater capacity to generate power. In general athletics, the difference is mostly negligible, especially if the person has been transitioned for years, but in sports that directly measure your capacity to generate power like powerlifting and olympic lifting, athletes who were male during puberty will have an advantage.

This asks a legitimate question whether cis-women have a chance in the future if they have to compete in the same league as transwomen who have been men for 30+ years and got training advantage of that. Take the case of Matt / Janae Kroc, who made powerlifting records before transition and hasn't officially made any attempts since - but from what I gathered, she could easily do it despite having been almost two years on estrogen. In most cases trans rights aren't at odds with cisgenders, but here they might. There is great variation in body types among natural women - hence weight classes - but it only goes so far. Women's lift records are typically 2/3 of men's pound for pound. The question hence is whether it's fair for ciswomen to compete with transwomen. Since there are already plenty of weight classes, I don't see it impossible to have separate classes for transpeople.

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51988629]God damn I would love to watch The Steroid Olympics[/QUOTE] You can before testing was introduce in the 1980s.

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51988629]God damn I would love to watch The Steroid Olympics[/QUOTE] You already are when you watch the Olympics. Tests are easy as hell to beat, Olympic lifters are swimming in drugs. Doesn't discredit their achievements, steroids aren't magic, you still have to work incredibly hard and be genetically gifted to even have an iceberg's chance in hell at competing, but anyone who thinks any Olympian is natural other than the ones in unique events like shooting is delusional.

They could solve it by having a class that is exclusive for transgender woman and men but that also brings the question why they cant compete in the opposite sex they identify with. It's complicated but probably will be resolved in the future.

[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51989523]Ah, Yes! The classic of "You'll never be a real [gender]"! Gosh, you sure help me cope with the crushing burden of knowing the skin I live in is a false approximation of what I really wish I was! You really, really make my life easier! Gosh it's like that's why it's fucking soul destroying to be trans.. Really Makes U Think..[/QUOTE] I'm finding it disconcerting in this discussion that it seems like it'a impossible to see transgender MtF as female but also find the sports issue problematic. I believe that an MtF is a woman, believe they should be called by the proper pronoun, and should be able to use female bathrooms. However there are certain topics where you have to accept that there are issues such as MtF having advantage over CISfemales because of their origin gender/sex. I understand that it is a sensitive and emotional topic for people such as your self, and I sympathize with that. Regardless you have to accept the reality and try and find solutions that work with our Biological realities.

[QUOTE=freaka;51991789]They could solve it by having a class that is exclusive for transgender woman and men but that also brings the question why they cant compete in the opposite sex they identify with. It's complicated but probably will be resolved in the future.[/QUOTE] Probably. We just need to compile evidence to figure out if there is a noticeable general disparity, while also taking age of transition and bla bla into account. At that point it should become much more obvious what the right choice is.

[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51989523]Ah, Yes! The classic of "You'll never be a real [gender]"! Gosh, you sure help me cope with the crushing burden of knowing the skin I live in is a false approximation of what I really wish I was! You really, really make my life easier! Gosh it's like that's why it's fucking soul destroying to be trans.. Really Makes U Think..[/QUOTE] The discussion is about logos, not pathos. Feelings don't really matter when we're debating on how to separate competitors whose only important traits are the physical ones. Nobody's going to let you used a stacked deck just because it hurts your feelings to play otherwise. It doesn't "really make me think," it just makes me point out that your argument relies entirely on emotions and gut reactions instead asking yourself "is it fair to let someone who was a man for 35 years compete along with people who have been women all their lives?" [editline]a[/editline] Imo the ideal solution would be based on how long people have been a different gender, along with plain male and female brackets at the far ends of the spectrum, but that's not really a feasible solution.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51989645]Im gonna point to this post next time someone tells me FP isn't full of [B]far left liberals[/B]. How does a post like this go over uncontroversially? .[/QUOTE] this is an oxymoron

[QUOTE=Chaplin;51997212]this is an oxymoron[/QUOTE] Explain?

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;51997689]Explain?[/QUOTE] [img]https://www.growtopiagame.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=139680&d=1474996204[/img] liberals are not far left by definition, no one in the far left considers liberals anything more than left leaning moderaties thats why saying something like "far left liberals" is an oxymoron

[QUOTE=Chaplin;51997860][img]https://www.growtopiagame.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=139680&d=1474996204[/img] liberals are not far left by definition, no one in the far left considers liberals anything more than left leaning moderaties thats why saying something like "far left liberals" is an oxymoron[/QUOTE] keep in mind it's pantz saying this, he's so far above the top right center is left to him :v:

liberal socialists do exist, John Stuart Mill is a pretty good example. That chart is pretty bad too. "Ultra-anarchism" sheesh. Why is progressivism more right wing than liberalism. Wtf is ultra-capitalism. Why is national socialism on the left, hitler and the NASDAP explicitly rejected left wing economics (strasserists were kicked out by them.) Although pantz master's connotation is just a joke.

The chart is pretty terrible overall. Fascism as economically right wing? What? They nationalized quite a few industries and controlled trade like crazy.

honestly I think the fairest way to deal with this is not to allow transgender people to compete, or maybe have an open division that allows any gender? it really, really sucks, especially having to deal with that disphoria in not being officially recognised, but if hormone therapy can conceivably give someone an unfair advantage, it's indistinguishable from any other banned performance enhancing practices, and it could be abused by other competitors to gain an unfair advantage ideally in the future we'll have better understanding about the science of it, and be able to actually assess any given person's advantages/disadvantages, and basically abolish gender divisions entirely in favour of something akin to weight classes in boxing?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51998392]The chart is pretty terrible overall. Fascism as economically right wing? What? They nationalized quite a few industries and controlled trade like crazy.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't really place free trade as a right or left policy, but a nationalist policy, which can go both ways. I mean both Bernie and Trump are pretty protectionist. It's an idiocy that plagues the whole spectrum. Even libertarians can be seen sometimes advocating it. The privatization is pretty weird about nazi germany. They, like basically every western country did a lot of nationalization during the depression. But they actually privatized quite a lot later on as well. [URL]http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf[/URL]