I don't disagree with any of that, I don't think she should be allowed to compete in that category and there's undoubted biological differences between her and her competitors. There isn't really any disputing that, and you only have to watch the mixed gender relays in running and swimming to see that. If you wouldn't say it to her face, then why would you say it differently online? The fact you wouldn't have the bottle to say it to her directly, doesn't change anything. If they want to be called a woman and you're calling them otherwise, you clearly have something against them. You know it would be too offensive to say to her directly, but are more than fine to use the incorrect term online? I don't think the stage of the transition is really what you're bothered about at all, I just don't think you're accepting or understanding of transgenders. You are right though in that transphobia is pretty widespread and you're far from the only one, which is all the more reason and need for that bigotry and prejudice to be challenged.
I am accepting but you're right I don't understand it. I just feel some are changing because they might feel like they should be a woman when really they are just maybe a slightly less masculine man than others. At this moment in time I do think it is a possible mental condition that could be treated especially in all the young people who do it too early and some then regret it. I mean if you're biologically a man you are a man and is that such a bad thing that you would go to all the trouble of transitioning. Look I'm proud of my country for becoming one of the first to allow gay marriage and I certainly understand that being guy is a straightforward thing. You can't fake fancying a gender. But biology doesn't lie and you are a man or woman and if you don't feel that way it is probably a mental thing. But listen I'm up for my mind being changed and if I was shown the science of it being a real thing I would totally agree
Should say Iplayer, wanted to catch it at work but unless I'm blind they didn't decide to put it on there
Elaine Thompson should have two world records, with her two golds. The only reason Flo-Jo didn't get those times stripped was because she retired shortly after smashing them.
Yeah they were about to bring in random out of competition drug testing for the first time so you couldn't adjust your drug routine to fit around the testing so she conveniently retired quite young so as to avoid them. No way was it a coincidence. Also her 100m record was almost certainly illegally wind assisted. On the day of her record there was a strong wind that had been consistently recorded all day. But at the time of her run the trackside equipment recorded a wind reading of 0.0m/s. It appears that there was a technical malfunction in the equipment but without an official reading to confirm illegal wind assistance there was nothing that could be done about it. The long jump track that ran parallel to the 100m track recorded an illegal reading but that wasn't allowed to be taken into account. All in all, drugs or no drugs, that record is bollocks and should have been scrubbed decades ago. As others have said, the fact that she died young in the late 90s and she never failed a drugs test means it's difficult to retrospectively wipe the record as it would be seen as disrespectful to the dead. And I suppose, although the suspicions are obvious there is no definitive proof.
I watched it at work on my computer, I do think the BBC's clarity on what is on and when has been shocking compared to previous games
you should’ve ended your post here pal! The rest of it is further proof of your ignorance around this particular subject it shouldn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks. If this person that was born a man, actually feels more like a women; that doesn’t affect anyone other than that person and friends/family. I can’t understand why it bothers other people the one thing we all do agree on is that she probably shouldn’t have been allowed to compete, in a sport that is pure physical strength. However, she came last, so for this particular event, her birth sex is meaningless. A bigger concern is whether these Chinese girls cleaning up in weightlifting, are all clean athletes???
Yes as I said I don't understand it so I am ignorant on the subject. They have every right to change if it puts their mind at ease. And I also said I would call them a woman to their face out of respect for their situation whether it be a mental disorder or a genuine thing but I can't help what I think at this moment in time. Listen nobody really understands it only the person going through it really.
with a bit of empathy and if you listen to how people feel, you can understand things like this (and things like mental health issues), without actually going through it yourself. I’m not digging you out dude. I respect your honesty on the matter
Doesn't bother me what people want to call themselves or what they consider themselves to be, that's their privilege. But as you've alluded to there are issues in sport that have to be addressed. If Roger Federer (for example) were to announce tomorrow that he's transitioning would s/he then be allowed to play in women's tennis tournaments? If yes then s/he'd literally never lose a set and win every Grand Slam s/he entered, and if no then why not? (Though I'm bollocksed if I know what this has to do with th'Olympics!)
For me at least there has to be some differentiation based on when someone has transitioned. In the case of Laurel Hubbard (and this would carry over to your Federer example), they have developed as a man, they have gained every advantage that being genetically male and having significantly higher levels of testosterone gives men physically. No amount of testosterone inhibitors will change that, their bones are already denser, and their muscles stronger than that of an equivalent woman. So, in my quite uneducated opinion on the topic, that would appear to be extremely unfair on the athletes who were born genetically female and have not had those advantages. On the other hand, if the athlete has transitioned at a younger age where they have not benefitted from developing as a man, then I think it is a slightly different issue and there's certainly more of a grey area. Which of course opens up a whole other can of worms of drawing that line between physical advantage based on sex vs physical advantage based on effort and training. Ultimately there's no easy answer.
I don't think anyone on here has made the argument that transgender athletes should be allowed to compete against women. It's a very difficult, and grey area that there isn't an easy solution to but I certainly think the current solution isn't a fair one. World athletics rules on this though generally relates to testosterone, so in this example Federer wouldn't be able to do this without a long period of hormone replacement therapy which blocks testosterone as well as significantly decreasing strength, lean body mass and muscle. Laurel Hubbard has undergone this therapy since 2012. The limit of testosterone levels for a transgender athlete competing against women is 5nm/litre for the 12 months prior to competing. The average in men is 10-30nm/litre, and in women is 0.3-2.4nm/litre. Federer would still as you say, win every set and every grand slam, as they'd still have a significant biological advantage over the women that you're competing against, but it's not as simple as him announcing tomorrow he's changed genders and winning every event. He'd have to sacrifice a significant amount of his career, and with all of the effects of the testosterone blockers it'd be difficult to imagine anyone wanting to go through that who isn't experiencing gender dysphoria.
We should and they have my respect but maybe they should also seek help from a psychiatrist before changing. Maybe many do though and if that doesn't change anything do whatever makes them comfortable in life
Other issue with that is how early a transition is realistic to prevent a inherent advantage. For instance getting into your 20s you've already gained the vast majority of that development through your teens into early 20s. And from a personal perspective, I think its bonkers to allow teenagers to transition (not identify etc), there is just no way to fully comprehend whether its the right call at that age. I don't see a way you have male to female athletes competing against women without an inherent advantage. And introducing a "cut off" point would force younger athletes considering it to rush a decision they may not be sure on.
For me, the only answer is to divide it down the lines of biological sex. XY chromosome = biological male and you have to enter the men's events even if you later change your gender identity and undergo gender reassignment procedures. XX chromosome = biological female and you can enter male or female events (Although the vast majority of biological females will enter the women's events, the exception is there for those few sports where physical build is less of an advantage like darts or snooker and it's possible for an elite female to compete with elite males at the same level). And in the extremely rare cases where people are born genetically intersex with both male and female characteristics and genetic profiles, they shall be allowed to compete in either category, so long as their natural testosterone levels are below a prescribed threshold. If it's above that threshold then men's events only. I think if you go down the route of what age you were when you began to transition and whether you took puberty blockers etc you get into a very messy and murky area full of inconsistencies. Puberty starts at different ages in different people and it's impossible to know how much advantage, or otherwise, somebody gained from puberty before blockers and cross-gender hormones began to be taken. And even if there was a way to define this, I don't think it would actually be accurate. Boys have higher testosterone levels than girls even before puberty and consequently have physical advantages even at primary school age which means that the best boys are usually better than the best girls in most primary school age groups. There are obviously many cultural factors that play a part in reducing the talent pool in girls sports and reduce the access many girls have to sports and reduce the parental and coaching support that many girls receive even if they do get into sport. But there's no doubt that genetic physical advantage plays a big role and those advantages will persist into adulthood even if someone transitions at a very young age and takes puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones. Another factor is the effect of the menstrual cycle. If you ask any female sportsperson about the subject and they'll tell you that it can have some quite severe impacts on sporting performance. Not just things like period pains and cramps but it can affect the way that the body stores fat and water making you heavier and more lethargic at certain times of the cycle. Then there's the mental impact of rising and falling hormone levels. It can be partially controlled by things like the pill and injections, the effectiveness varies from person to person and some people are affected worse than others. But there's no doubt that it has a negative impact on most females' sporting performance and if the menstrual cycle didn't exist, most would get a performance boost across their career. Now no matter how many hormones you take or how good your surgeon is, you can't grow or create a uterus and ovaries so it's impossible for a transgender woman to ever experience the effects of the menstrual cycle. Which in my opinion gives an unfair advantage. And this will always be the case no matter how young you were when you began to transition.
