Two trans teen win Conn. state championship in track

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2018, 02:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you know what does that? I'll give you a hint: it starts with a "T".

A hyperandrogenic female still has the bone structure of a female.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 03:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A hyperandrogenic female still has the bone structure of a female.

But it is different than other females, the difference of which depends on the level of hyperandrogenism as well as when it began.

The difference between male and female anatomy comes down to testosterone and estrogen, period. It's not just about the muscle mass or the anatomy. Literally every physiological difference between someone XX and XY chromosomed people comes down to testosterone.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2018, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think this article expresses my opinions on this pretty well. Applying it to trans athletes, and at lower levels of competition, seems logical to me: https://theconversation.com/so-what-if-some-female-olympians-have-high-testosterone-62935

It is a natural condition which gives them an edge.  Just like being 7' tall.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2018, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But it is different than other females, the difference of which depends on the level of hyperandrogenism as well as when it began.

The difference between male and female anatomy comes down to testosterone and estrogen, period. It's not just about the muscle mass or the anatomy. Literally every physiological difference between someone XX and XY chromosomed people comes down to testosterone.

I usually follow you, but I have no idea the point you are trying to make.

Are you saying a female that has hyperandrogenism should not have testosterone levels moderated is they want to compete as a female as an adult? if the answer is no, then why not just have one division no male or female? Because that thing that starts with a T makes all the difference.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 03:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I usually follow you, but I have no idea the point you are trying to make.

Are you saying a female that has hyperandrogenism should not have testosterone levels moderated is they want to compete as a female as an adult? if the answer is no, then why not just have one division no male or female? Because that thing that starts with a T makes all the difference.

My answer is no. As for the lack of male and female divisions, there is still value in that. A woman with hyperandrogenism or a trans woman may have higher testosterone levels than other female competitors, but they still have lower levels than male competitors.

My argument is that testosterone is an arbitrary way to draw the line between those divisions and it is only one of a large number of things that give people a competitive edge. We should not focus on it in the way that we do.

[Millhouse]

(06-18-2018, 02:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you know what does that? I'll give you a hint: it starts with a "T".

True.

But the male bone structure (body wise) effected by testosterone that develops in puberty through adulthood is permanent, and can't be reversed through treatments. Muscle mass will be decreased, some facial bone structures may alter a bit, hips may even widen some. But that is about it.

And since we are discussing athletes here, the transitioned male to females are still using a developed male bone structure frame. And imo that is a legitimate argument against it.

Even more so, when there are no treatments involved for what is basically a male 'crossdresser'* competing against females, then that I can never be for.

* I dont say crossdresser to be offensive, just got a blank for the term of a male that identifies as a female without any treatments or surgeries.

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2018, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  Literally every physiological difference between someone XX and XY chromosomed people comes down to testosterone.

But not just current testosterone levels.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 03:47 PM)Millhouse Wrote: True.

But the male bone structure (body wise) effected by testosterone that develops in puberty through adulthood is permanent, and can't be reversed through treatments. Muscle mass will be decreased, some facial bone structures may alter a bit, hips may even widen some. But that is about it.

And since we are discussing athletes here, the transitioned male to females are still using a developed male bone structure frame. And imo that is a legitimate argument against it.

And I could make legitimate arguments against any number of physiological conditions that give a competitive edge to athletes. The article I posted talked about this, how for so many other things we don't shun athletes for having them, we praise their performance. This is just another one of those things, to me.

(06-18-2018, 03:47 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Even more so, when there are no treatments involved for what is basically a male 'crossdresser'* competing against females, then that I can never be for.

* I dont say crossdresser to be offensive, just got a blank for the term of a male that identifies as a female without any treatments or surgeries.

Which is why I discussed the the NCAA rules. It requires at least one year of being on hormones.

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2018, 03:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My answer is no. As for the lack of male and female divisions, there is still value in that. A woman with hyperandrogenism or a trans woman may have higher testosterone levels than other female competitors, but they still have lower levels than male competitors.

My argument is that testosterone is an arbitrary way to draw the line between those divisions and it is only one of a large number of things that give people a competitive edge. We should not focus on it in the way that we do.

Like I said, I usually follow you but you've lost me here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. Earlier you have said Testosterone makes all the difference when Fred brought up bone structure. So if it makes all the difference then why should it not be regulated if you want to compete against those of your sex?

It's an unfortunate situation but one we must look to make equal. The IOC seems to be of the same opinion as they have imposed a T-Level cap on females in various Track distances.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Like I said, I usually follow you but you've lost me here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. Earlier you have said Testosterone makes all the difference when Fred brought up bone structure. So if it makes all the difference then why should it not be regulated if you want to compete against those of your sex?

Testosterone creates the difference between someone of an XX v. an XY chromosomal pairing. It doesn't provides as significant a competitive edge as people are making it out to be.

(06-18-2018, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's an unfortunate situation but one we must look to make equal. The IOC seems to be of the same opinion as they have imposed a T-Level cap on females in various Track distances.  

Indeed, though the IAAF has these on hold pending current arbitration. The CAS is set to hand down a ruling on this issue in the very near future. This will also affect the IOC.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/23/caster-semenya-dutee-chand-iaaf-hyperandrogenic

[Millhouse]

(06-18-2018, 04:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And I could make legitimate arguments against any number of physiological conditions that give a competitive edge to athletes. The article I posted talked about this, how for so many other things we don't shun athletes for having them, we praise their performance. This is just another one of those things, to me.


Which is why I discussed the the NCAA rules. It requires at least one year of being on hormones.

Yet a difference is that those physiological differences naturally occurs internally without outside influences.

A male-to-female body occurs because of outside influences from surgery to hormone treatments causing that change. And then on top of that they have a male bone structure to work with.

When it comes to sports, I dont consider them to be on par with each other. If anything I look at a transitioned male to female more similar to someone taking PEDS, HGH, or steroids to get an edge, than to an abnormal natural occurring condition.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 04:43 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yet a difference is that those physiological differences naturally occurs internally without outside influences.

A male-to-female body occurs because of outside influences from surgery to hormone treatments causing that change. And then on top of that they have a male bone structure to work with.

When it comes to sports, I dont consider them to be on par with each other. If anything I look at a transitioned male to female more similar to someone taking PEDS, HGH, or steroids to get an edge, than to an abnormal natural occurring condition.

I would argue that being trans is a naturally occurring condition. The hormones used are used to bring them more inline with their gender. Your argument is based on the idea that the reason for this being done is so they can gain a competitive edge, but the reality is different. If that were being done, I would agree to it being unethical, but we have yet to see such an occurrence where they have competed as a different gender with hormone therapy just to gain a competitive edge.

So I see your comparison as flawed from that standpoint.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-18-2018, 04:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Testosterone creates the difference between someone of an XX v. an XY chromosomal pairing. It doesn't provides as significant a competitive edge as people are making it out to be.

Wait... you don't think the thing that is categorized as an anabolic steroid, and banned by every competitive organization around, is a significant competitive edge?

Have you never heard of Barry Bonds? You know, the guy who hit 73 home runs and won four straight MVPs in his LATE THIRTIES.


(In 1991 he was 26, in 2004 he was 39.)



Sorry Bels, but you saying Testosterone not giving a competitive edge is up there with the people who think the Earth is flat. Lol

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 07:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Wait... you don't think the thing that is categorized as an anabolic steroid, and banned by every competitive organization around, is a significant competitive edge?

Have you never heard of Barry Bonds? You know, the guy who hit 73 home runs and won four straight MVPs in his LATE THIRTIES.


(In 1991 he was 26, in 2004 he was 39.)



Sorry Bels, but you saying Testosterone not giving a competitive edge is up there with the people who think the Earth is flat. Lol

Tetrahydrogestrinone, what Bonds used. increases androgen (and thereby testosterone) at levels far exceeding the heightened levels of a trans woman or a hyperandrogenic woman. The information I am referring to is coming from the CAS in arbitration with IAAF that said IAAF failed to prove that the level of increased testosterone provided a competitive edge. Comparing the Bonds case to this is like saying "a laser guided smart bomb with a minimal payload doesn't cause a lot of collateral damage." "But what about this laser guided smart bomb with a nuclear warhead!?"

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-19-2018, 07:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Tetrahydrogestrinone, what Bonds used. increases androgen (and thereby testosterone) at levels far exceeding the heightened levels of a trans woman or a hyperandrogenic woman. The information I am referring to is coming from the CAS in arbitration with IAAF that said IAAF failed to prove that the level of increased testosterone provided a competitive edge. Comparing the Bonds case to this is like saying "a laser guided smart bomb with a minimal payload doesn't cause a lot of collateral damage." "But what about this laser guided smart bomb with a nuclear warhead!?"

Except Bonds wasn't competing against women with low levels of testosterone, he was competing against men with already high levels... and addming more still made that big of a difference.

Roided Bonds vs un-Roided MLB players is the same as Trans m-t-f vs normal women.

It creates a competitive edge and denying it is just silly.

If you cut of LeBron James' junk and gave him some hormone treatments, he would still be 6'8 with a huge skeletal/musular frame. The treatments wouldn't change that. It would be Globetrotters vs Generals if he went to the WNBA.

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 09:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except Bonds wasn't competing against women with low levels of testosterone, he was competing against men with already high levels... and addming more still made that big of a difference.

Roided Bonds vs un-Roided MLB players is the same as Trans m-t-f vs normal women.

It creates a competitive edge and denying it is just silly.

If you cut of LeBron James' junk and gave him some hormone treatments, he would still be 6'8 with a huge skeletal/musular frame. The treatments wouldn't change that. It would be Globetrotters vs Generals if he went to the WNBA.

The CAS isn't as convinced as you.

[Beaker]

(06-15-2018, 02:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: they were still born with a genetically superior body for athletics.

Didn't Jimmy the Greek say the same thing about black people?