Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: "Womans" sports

    @ Belthazor..
    The issue about the specific requirements is really a major one. Because the ultimate line is arbitrary. For example, there used to be a requirement to have the penis removed. Now there is not. now there is a requirement for a specific range of testosterone. But that too is arbitrary, and in the case of the thread (if memory serves) the male identifying as a female, objected to the required level. I think the claim was that it didn't really apply because they specifically had such an androgynous body that he barely produced testosterone anyway.

    Still, who says a woman can't produce as much testosterone as a man? I think the whole point of the identified sexuality, is to say that the actual state of the body doesn't matter. .. so it seems to be self refuting to nail down any specific marker.. like a penis, or testosterone level.
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: "Womans" sports

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That isn't really true. The rules that allow it are not created through democracy, it is just done for PC reasons by those in control.
    When I say "the people involved in the situation" I mean two groups. The athletes, and the Olympic committee that sets the rules. None of the athletes tried to deny her chosen gender, nor does the Olympic committee. So, my statement is definitely true. The athletes who objected did not say she was a he, they simply said her advantages were not fair competition. That is different from your insistance on using a male pronoun.

    ---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Question though. If taking hormones changes everything, do we expect to see people born female, taking male hormones, performance being enhanced to a male level after a year?
    I mean if it can lower a man's abilities, can it raise a woman's?
    Or are men and women "actually born different"?
    I think it is hard to deny that generally, men are going to be physically stronger than women. And a lot of that comes in the post-puberty to young adult period of their life. For me it was ages 17-22 that I went from "wimpy dude" to "monster man". It's not like I worked out or did body building or anything, my genetics just did their thing and I bulked out like crazy while sitting on my ass playing computer games.

    Now, hormones are a part of that, they clearly trigger the body to build itself in different ways. That's well known. So they absolutley have an impact. But... once you make those bones and muscles, they aren't just going to vanish. They might over the long haul, but not any time soon, and especially not if you work hard to keep up your strength like any athelete would.

    So they totally have an advantage... the questio is, is it such an advantage that it will make cis gendered women un-competative overall.

    Take men vs women. I don't know the stats but I'd say most top women athletes are probably stronger and in better shape than the average man. But... they aren't usually a match for elite men. The total numbers are about the same (men vs women overall) so you have a similar number of elites, so if men and women competed, almost no woman could rank.

    But, with trans women, well, there aren't very many of those overall, and the number of them that are interested in athletics is yet smaller. So are there even enough elite trans gensgendered women to have any significant impact in womens sports beyond a few individuals?

    I'm not sure. Part of the problem is that sports, by its nature, is a best of the best universe. So it really only takes one dominant player to really set the tone for the whole sport sometimes. I aree it could be a problem, but I'm not quite convinced it is a problem or will grow as a problem. It might. If you told me I could be the womens world championship body builder if I'd just cut off my penis and take hormone suppressants, Id say, "**** no." So I don't think there will be some kid of stambede of opportunity like MT was insinuating.
    Feed me some debate pellets!


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts