Jump to content
BuckyBadger

Trans Weightlifter to be in Olympics

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jp157 said:

Are her competitors in their 40s?

No, looks like the one to beat is 21 and the others are high 20s and low 30s.  I don't think it means all that much. Did she even compete during that time in her life? Much of sport is motivation, you can never know motivates an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BuckyBadger said:

I posted this earlier in the thread which speaks directly to your point.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/21/olympics-tokyo-laurel-hubbard-trans-weightlifter-new-zealand

”IOC’s decision has recently come under fire after scientific papers were published which said that people who have undergone male puberty retain significant advantages, including in power and strength, even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone levels.

Last year, the scientists Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg found that the male performance advantage in weightlifting was 30% when compared to women. Their research indicated that even when transgender women suppressed testosterone for 12 months, the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength was only around 5%.“

What about 9 years?   I'm all for studies and figuring this out because I don't think anyone knows what is going on.  The last paragraph is out to lunch though.  Not because of inaccurate numbers but because the numbers are disparate and they have to provide some long term correlation.  I doubt there is a large enough sample set to do that right now.  Additionally, Laurel Hubbard is not someone with lean muscle mass. Nobody will mistake her for Artur Taymazov.

I feel we are in new territory.  Maybe she doesn't work hard and so doesn't deserve the same respect as her competitors.  Maybe she does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

No, looks like the one to beat is 21 and the others are high 20s and low 30s.  I don't think it means all that much. Did she even compete during that time in her life? Much of sport is motivation, you can never know motivates an individual.

So with that.. we’ve established you’re either ignorant about the realities of high level athletics and aging… or you’re deliberately being obtuse. 
 

It’s one or the other

Edited by jp157

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

What about 9 years?   I'm all for studies and figuring this out because I don't think anyone knows what is going on.  The last paragraph is out to lunch though.  Not because of inaccurate numbers but because the numbers are disparate and they have to provide some long term correlation.  I doubt there is a large enough sample set to do that right now.  Additionally, Laurel Hubbard is not someone with lean muscle mass. Nobody will mistake her for Artur Taymazov.

I feel we are in new territory.  Maybe she doesn't work hard and so doesn't deserve the same respect as her competitors.  Maybe she does. 

On one hand you say it’s not unfair for trans women to compete with biological women, but now you say you “don’t think anyone knows what’s going on” and “we are in new territory”. What are you even arguing?

If you are saying there isn’t much evidence one way or the other, ok. But that means that the burden of proof is on the trans athletes to show competing with biological females is fair. Not the other way around.

It’s backwards to change the rules on a criteria which is “new territory”, but then say that people who criticize the new rules need to show evidence.

I’d have to agree with the post above that you are deliberately being obtuse.


 

 

Edited by BuckyBadger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BuckyBadger said:

On one hand you say it’s not unfair for trans women to compete with biological women, but now you say you “don’t think anyone knows what’s going on” and “we are in new territory”. What are you even arguing?

If you are saying there isn’t much evidence one way or the other, ok. But that means that the burden of proof is on the trans athletes to show competing with biological females is fair. Not the other way around.

It’s backwards to change the rules on a criteria which is “new territory”, but then say that people who criticize the new rules need to show evidence.

I’d have to agree with the post above that you are deliberately being obtuse.


 

 

Apart from the last sentence, you are spot on.  It is a twosided coin.  Who are we being 'fair' to?  One side says it is unfair to females who are not trans, but don't supply any real proof.  The other side says if you even out the hormones for an extended period of time, it is fair.  That side also provides no real proof.  It is a political issue as well, so there is no waiting. 

If you read what i wrote, i say Laurel Hubbard's numbers don't demonstrate to me that she has an inherent advantage.   You say she has an obvious advantage -End of story.  I dont think it was at all obtuse to ask, politely, for some justification of your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jp157 said:

So with that.. we’ve established you’re either ignorant about the realities of high level athletics and aging… or you’re deliberately being obtuse. 
 

It’s one or the other

She is not going to win.  I don't think you understand the difference between 1st and 8th, at any level of athletics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TripNSweep said:

How many guys are transitioning to being female for athletic success? Go ahead, I'll wait. 

I think your looking short term and not long term. Yes right now it’s not significant numbers. But 20 years from now, when it’s sociably more tolerable. Women’s sports are more lucrative, and a few trailblazers have paved the way. You will see more people taking advantage of it. Especially if you only have to identify and take hormones. 
 

If you don’t have to go through the entire process, then a 10-12 year sacrifice of being a Tom boy may seem tempting for what they could potentially gain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

She is not going to win.  I don't think you understand the difference between 1st and 8th, at any level of athletics.

So since she’s only in the top echelon of her sport. Not the prohibitive favorite. That somehow negates the clear fact that she is a legitimate competitor well past prime age. Top 8 is all American. Meaning if this was wrestling she’d be a favorite to be on podium. Not just participating. 

 

You also said.. “I don’t think the age matters that much”. “It’s a lot of motivation involved” 

So you are deliberately ignoring… or are ignorant of the bare truth that no matter how “motivated”.. very very few athletes not on PEDs are competitive in pro/Olympic sports past their early 30s… much less older… so a 43 year old “only” being top 8 is still an important data point..

So that leaves us with one of two conclusions.

One, you know all of this and are deliberately being obtuse to virtue signal

Two, you don’t understand the basic metrics and facts of high level competition and are simply backing an ideology of “inclusivity” that only acknowledges data and science when convenient 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rk_Kerk said:

I think your looking short term and not long term. Yes right now it’s not significant numbers. But 20 years from now, when it’s sociably more tolerable. Women’s sports are more lucrative, and a few trailblazers have paved the way. You will see more people taking advantage of it. Especially if you only have to identify and take hormones. 
 

If you don’t have to go through the entire process, then a 10-12 year sacrifice of being a Tom boy may seem tempting for what they could potentially gain. 

Especially if they get inside a support bubble that lauds them and showers them in adulation and praise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jp157 said:

So since she’s only in the top echelon of her sport. Not the prohibitive favorite. That somehow negates the clear fact that she is a legitimate competitor well past prime age. Top 8 is all American. Meaning if this was wrestling she’d be a favorite to be on podium. Not just participating. 

 

You also said.. “I don’t think the age matters that much”. “It’s a lot of motivation involved” 

So you are deliberately ignoring… or are ignorant of the bare truth that no matter how “motivated”.. very very few athletes not on PEDs are competitive in pro/Olympic sports past their early 30s… much less older… so a 43 year old “only” being top 8 is still an important data point..

So that leaves us with one of two conclusions.

One, you know all of this and are deliberately being obtuse to virtue signal

Two, you don’t understand the basic metrics and facts of high level competition and are simply backing an ideology of “inclusivity” that only acknowledges data and science when convenient 


 

I am virtue signaling that you,  and everyone else,  don't understand this issue.   I am not arguing for her inclusion, rather i am arguing that you don't have justification to exclude her.

I understand people in their late thirties win high level medals, including Chris Campbell at 37 11 months.  I haven't seen any of her numbers beyond those at age 41, but the ones I have seen arent medal worthy.  I am guessing that you consider this clear evidence of her past testosterone production, but it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

I am virtue signaling that you,  and everyone else,  don't understand this issue.   I am not arguing for her inclusion, rather i am arguing that you don't have justification to exclude her.

I understand people in their late thirties win high level medals, including Chris Campbell at 37 11 months.  I haven't seen any of her numbers beyond those at age 41, but the ones I have seen arent medal worthy.  I am guessing that you consider this clear evidence of her past testosterone production, but it is not.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

The burden of proof has to fall on the side of those that are changing the rules to be allowed to compete. It does not fall on biological females to prove they are the same as biological men that take hormone therapy.

And as you’ve said there is no evidence to suggest it’s fair.
 

 

Edited by BuckyBadger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

I am virtue signaling that you,  and everyone else,  don't understand this issue.   I am not arguing for her inclusion, rather i am arguing that you don't have justification to exclude her.

I understand people in their late thirties win high level medals, including Chris Campbell at 37 11 months.  I haven't seen any of her numbers beyond those at age 41, but the ones I have seen arent medal worthy.  I am guessing that you consider this clear evidence of her past testosterone production, but it is not.

Thank you for making my point for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rk_Kerk said:

I think your looking short term and not long term. Yes right now it’s not significant numbers. But 20 years from now, when it’s sociably more tolerable. Women’s sports are more lucrative, and a few trailblazers have paved the way. You will see more people taking advantage of it. Especially if you only have to identify and take hormones. 
 

If you don’t have to go through the entire process, then a 10-12 year sacrifice of being a Tom boy may seem tempting for what they could potentially gain. 

So you're arguing in favor of discriminatory rules against a certain class of people based on something that is hypothetical? 

Again, show me proof of somebody doing this to gain an athletic advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TripNSweep said:

So you're arguing in favor of discriminatory rules against a certain class of people based on something that is hypothetical? 

Again, show me proof of somebody doing this to gain an athletic advantage.

Yes I am. That way it insures no one will take advantage of it. If they want to participate in their own class, or in their biological gender then so be it. 
 

But leaving the door open to males who still have all their parts and identify as women can really ruin athletic sports. For instances there is a handful of women in the world that can dunk the basketball. Where hundreds of thousands of men can. 
 

Pretending like their isn’t a biological difference can really really mess things up down the road. 
 

Now if you 100% go through the entire process then MAYBE I would be on board with them competing with women, and I’m not sure even then I would be in favor. But that’s just my opinion, yours is clearly different and we both have the right to our beliefs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rk_Kerk said:

Yes I am. That way it insures no one will take advantage of it. If they want to participate in their own class, or in their biological gender then so be it. 
 

But leaving the door open to males who still have all their parts and identify as women can really ruin athletic sports. For instances there is a handful of women in the world that can dunk the basketball. Where hundreds of thousands of men can. 
 

Pretending like their isn’t a biological difference can really really mess things up down the road. 
 

Now if you 100% go through the entire process then MAYBE I would be on board with them competing with women, and I’m not sure even then I would be in favor. But that’s just my opinion, yours is clearly different and we both have the right to our beliefs. 

Nobody is doing it now. I doubt anyone is going to in the future. One of the things that set this off was a girl who was pissed at losing and claimed one of the opposing team members was transgender (they weren't). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TripNSweep said:

So you're arguing in favor of discriminatory rules against a certain class of people based on something that is hypothetical? 

Again, show me proof of somebody doing this to gain an athletic advantage.

You are trying to cloud the issue by introducing the motivation for transitioning into the equation.  The motivation for transitioning is completely immaterial to the conversation.  We do not let biological men compete against biological women due to the fact that the men have innate physical advantages over the women.  Those advantages do not magically disappear after a person who is born male decides that he now wants to be female.  The range on how much those advantages are reduced would vary from 0% (for the athlete who has just identified as female but taken no steps to physically alter their bodies) to some unknowable percentage for the athlete who has gone through a transition with all surgeries and medications that modern medicine can provide.  Even at that extreme point I doubt that the advantage would be reduced by 100%.  Those born biologically male should not be competing in sports against those born female.  If they want to compete then do so against male athletes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lu1979 said:

You are trying to cloud the issue by introducing the motivation for transitioning into the equation.  The motivation for transitioning is completely immaterial to the conversation.  We do not let biological men compete against biological women due to the fact that the men have innate physical advantages over the women.  Those advantages do not magically disappear after a person who is born male decides that he now wants to be female.  The range on how much those advantages are reduced would vary from 0% (for the athlete who has just identified as female but taken no steps to physically alter their bodies) to some unknowable percentage for the athlete who has gone through a transition with all surgeries and medications that modern medicine can provide.  Even at that extreme point I doubt that the advantage would be reduced by 100%.  Those born biologically male should not be competing in sports against those born female.  If they want to compete then do so against male athletes.

I would say any trans person who is competing athletically is doing so not because they can't compete with men, or because they're seeking success they didn't have, it's because they enjoy competing in that sport. I would say all of the examples of transgender people competing in things like the Olympics is purely coincidental. In the case of the lifter from New Zealand, they transitioned a decade ago and are over 40. Their competitive advantage is nil. 

It's completely a non issue. Like I said, let me know when this actually becomes a problem that displaces women's athletics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TripNSweep said:

I would say any trans person who is competing athletically is doing so not because they can't compete with men, or because they're seeking success they didn't have, it's because they enjoy competing in that sport. I would say all of the examples of transgender people competing in things like the Olympics is purely coincidental. In the case of the lifter from New Zealand, they transitioned a decade ago and are over 40. Their competitive advantage is nil. 

It's completely a non issue. Like I said, let me know when this actually becomes a problem that displaces women's athletics. 

You think that there is no competitive advantage for the 43 year old who’s ranked top 8 in world… 

 

so you’re either ignorant or being deliberately ignorant 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be an assumption among some that there's no proof that biological males have an inherent advantage over biological females.

That lack of direct proof is probably not why athletic competition has been divided between men and women.  The evidence of the differences between biological men and women is so overwhelmingly evident, it's just something that's been assumed from the beginning, and these differences don't go away when a grown biological male decides to transition to a transgender woman.  

Regardless of your own outlook, I'd like to applaud everyone here for keeping the conversation civilized on such an explosive topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TripNSweep said:

It's completely a non issue. Like I said, let me know when this actually becomes a problem that displaces women's athletics. 

Google Connecticut women’s track and field and spend five minutes on the top stories and you’ll see precisely that.

I would, ironically, assert that they, the new zealand weightlifter, having a long biological history of elevated hormone levels and growth factors, are one of the few who maybe could level the playing field in weightlifting, because weightlifting is very dirty.

BUT…with regards to general athletic eligibility, if you grow up, go through puberty with functioning testicles, develop the physical frame of a man, and then remove your testosterone, that doesn’t reorganize muscle fiber density or distribution, reconfigure and resize joint structure and dimensions, or realign muscle and tendon insertions across your musculoskeletal system.  Nor does it remove the 30 years of neurological wiring you laid down while living life on that frame and with that relative strength to weight ratio and its inherent athletic capabilities.  Until we have the medical  capabilities of addressing and implementing gender reassignment at a much more nuanced and precise level, there will always be a degree of potential unfairness in this topic.

Weightlifting is a non-combat sport, so I don’t have much of a position with this other than believing your logic is incomplete and/or flawed, but these things matter for other contact sports.  They also matter for careers and money no matter the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why so many men care about this issue. Women's athletics is inherently exclusionary, as it excludes biological males who have an advantage in athletics. If women want to expand who is allowed to compete to trans athletes who meet specific criteria, why would so many men have a problem with it? I don't see a huge outcry among women competitors about this issue, but it is more split along political lines. It's kind of interesting that often the same people who dislike title IX suddenly want to protect women's athletics from trans athletes.   

With all that said, I have zero issue with any woman who thinks allowing trans athletes to compete against women is unfair, and if the majority do not want to expand eligibility, I completely understand, since in my opinion, the athletic advantage that a trans athlete has is obvious. But I also don't have a problem if society is moving towards women's athletics also including trans athletes (or XXY athletes).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

Google Connecticut women’s track and field and spend five minutes on the top stories and you’ll see precisely that.

I would, ironically, assert that they, the new zealand weightlifter, having a long biological history of elevated hormone levels and growth factors, are one of the few who maybe could level the playing field in weightlifting, because weightlifting is very dirty.

BUT…with regards to general athletic eligibility, if you grow up, go through puberty with functioning testicles, develop the physical frame of a man, and then remove your testosterone, that doesn’t reorganize muscle fiber density or distribution, reconfigure and resize joint structure and dimensions, or realign muscle and tendon insertions across your musculoskeletal system.  Nor does it remove the 30 years of neurological wiring you laid down while living life on that frame and with that relative strength to weight ratio and its inherent athletic capabilities.  Until we have the medical  capabilities of addressing and implementing gender reassignment at a much more nuanced and precise level, there will always be a degree of potential unfairness in this topic.

Weightlifting is a non-combat sport, so I don’t have much of a position with this other than believing your logic is incomplete and/or flawed, but these things matter for other contact sports.  They also matter for careers and money no matter the sport.

The two transgender athletes from CT never tried anything past high school. So they didn't take away anything, except maybe a few people's pride. If either of them had gone to run in college, you might have a point. Also they didn't win all the time, there were definitely races they lost, so it wasn't as if they were unbeatable or that much better.

What about the cross country runner who actually did worse prior to transitioning? Making the transition helped them run faster times? They lost frequently too. 

It's lost on some people that being a mediocre athlete, or at least an average one, doesn't necessarily mean you'd beat women after transitioning. The fact it happens so rarely is kind of an indication as to where succeeding in athletics matters to people who do transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TripNSweep said:

The two transgender athletes from CT never tried anything past high school. So they didn't take away anything, except maybe a few people's pride. If either of them had gone to run in college, you might have a point. Also they didn't win all the time, there were definitely races they lost, so it wasn't as if they were unbeatable or that much better.

What about the cross country runner who actually did worse prior to transitioning? Making the transition helped them run faster times? They lost frequently too. 

It's lost on some people that being a mediocre athlete, or at least an average one, doesn't necessarily mean you'd beat women after transitioning. The fact it happens so rarely is kind of an indication as to where succeeding in athletics matters to people who do transition.

100% agreed, there are a lot of women who would and could kick most dudes butts.  I still think the point about frame and a truly level playing field at the top .01% holds water, but that’s under the massive (and false) supposition that athletics at that level are not “scientifically augmented” shall we say.  

I think the larger unaddressed problem that gets touched on here is the monomaniacal nature if elite athletes, and the proverbial plug that athletics is in holding back many a tide of mental unwellness.  Athletic post-career mental health really needs more attention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2021 at 6:39 PM, Rk_Kerk said:

I think your looking short term and not long term. Yes right now it’s not significant numbers. But 20 years from now, when it’s sociably more tolerable. Women’s sports are more lucrative, and a few trailblazers have paved the way. You will see more people taking advantage of it. Especially if you only have to identify and take hormones. 
 

If you don’t have to go through the entire process, then a 10-12 year sacrifice of being a Tom boy may seem tempting for what they could potentially gain. 

Potentially gain what exactly?    Maybe getting a clothing sponsorship and a picture of them pretending to be a woman on a Wheaties box?  The large majority of Olympic sports aren’t that lucrative even for men, they’re not going to be lucrative for women 20 years from now.   Of course an Olympic gold is the pinnacle for many of these sports including wrestling, but I don’t think someone will take much pride in it if they faked being a transgender to get it.

Heck even the average WNBA salary is only about $100k, and the max around $200k.  A good living to be sure, but hardly gonna be worth pretending to be a woman for 99.9% of people.  And to truly “take advantage,” that 0.1% is going to need to be pretty good/strong/tall to begin with.

Some of the only women’s sports that I can think of that can truly be “lucrative” are probably tennis and golf (and I know there has been some headlines about one in golf recently).    I still highly doubt there would be more than a couple people who may try to “take advantage” of it that aren’t truly transgendered though.   If it does become more “socially tolerable,”  I could certainly see more and more trans people competing at high levels, so I do think there needs to be some sort of regulation about it.    But it’s not going to be because some dude couldn’t beat other dudes and he decided to fake identify as a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...