Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Unimpressed
Feb 13, 2013



Wtf going on with NZ? They're looking as bad as we do.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


Unimpressed posted:

Wtf going on with NZ? They're looking as bad as we do.

Traditional first test of the year shitfest for NZ.

Unimpressed
Feb 13, 2013



Smorgasbord posted:

Traditional first test of the year shitfest for NZ.

First bled is where you usually beat us by 40

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


goddamn, been lit since that penalty goal off the post

algebra testes
Mar 5, 2011




Lipstick Apathy

That game loving ruled

algebra testes
Mar 5, 2011




Lipstick Apathy

Not even mad we put it out for the draw that owned

Unimpressed
Feb 13, 2013



Two bad teams,one great game.

Fanatic
Mar 9, 2006



That ending was wild.

Mister Chief
Jun 6, 2011



Longest regular time game I have seen since injury time was abolished.

Vagabundo
Mar 20, 2007

Donncha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Donncha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?


Unimpressed posted:

First bled is where you usually beat us by 40

Yeah, but that usually happens after they've had about 3 tests under their belt.

Vagabundo
Mar 20, 2007

Donncha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Donncha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?


Smorgasbord posted:

I edited at the same time you replied, but you know exactly what I mean - people who were born and developed as male and as a result have the physical characteristics that the categorisation was intended to exclude.

There's research that shows there's no significant difference in the characteristics after 12+ months of HRT, other than the plumbing downstairs.

tarbrush
Feb 7, 2011

But Schefter said they Love Herbert?!


Also there's a huge variety in both cis and trans women, and a ban that excludes a random 10st woman just because of the hypothetical existence of much larger recently transitioned woman is discriminatory and ineffective.

If there needs to be a limit, base it in size or weight or what have you.

bessantj
Jul 27, 2004




Watched bits of the game as I was working as some guy was watching it on his phone, seemed like a good game and wish I could have watched it all.

Vagabundo posted:

There's research that shows there's no significant difference in the characteristics after 12+ months of HRT, other than the plumbing downstairs.

Is that true? I don't know nearly enough about this stuff. I need to look up these studies.

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


bessantj posted:


Is that true?

No, at least not in any reputable source I can find.

I suspect based on the persistence of the claim there must have been a study that isolated one variable where the results were ambiguous enough or the sample size small enough to allow activists to fudge it but as per the IRB release the science is pretty clear that there is a significant imbalance in multiple areas.

There are just so many athletic advantages of being born and gone through puberty as a male that do not go away from taking hormones starting (and by no means ending) with bone density, lung capacity, strength, body frame. There is a reason why many mediocre recreational sportsmen immediately become elite female athletes as soon as they are allowed to compete as women after transitioning, even when they are decades older than the other elite women. It is impossible to not find those cases and understand why that is unless you are ideologically unwilling to see it.

tarbrush
Feb 7, 2011

But Schefter said they Love Herbert?!


Disagree. Trans athletes have been eligible for the Olympics since 2003 and none has ever qualified

https://www.menshealth.com/uk/fitne...ng-performance/

drunk leprechaun
May 7, 2007
sobriety is for the weak and the stupid

Smorgasbord posted:

No, at least not in any reputable source I can find.

I suspect based on the persistence of the claim there must have been a study that isolated one variable where the results were ambiguous enough or the sample size small enough to allow activists to fudge it but as per the IRB release the science is pretty clear that there is a significant imbalance in multiple areas.

There are just so many athletic advantages of being born and gone through puberty as a male that do not go away from taking hormones starting (and by no means ending) with bone density, lung capacity, strength, body frame. There is a reason why many mediocre recreational sportsmen immediately become elite female athletes as soon as they are allowed to compete as women after transitioning, even when they are decades older than the other elite women. It is impossible to not find those cases and understand why that is unless you are ideologically unwilling to see it.

Even if this is true, which without any sort of citations who knows, you're ignoring a huge part of risk calculation. Which is the likelihood of an event happening. Current estimates put the trans population at 0.6%. If we double this to 1% of female rugby players that means that you can expect one out of every 6-7 starting XV to be trans. So the likelihood of having an interaction on a pitch with a trans athlete is very low. Even if having a collision with a trans athlete while playing rugby, which again is likely an exceedingly rare event, without any documented proof that it is more dangerous there is no reason for the ban other than bigotry.

As people have pointed out if the actual issue is rate of injury where is the data? Why don't we see the same scrutiny applied to men's rugby where we can have huge size differences? Where is the concern for them? The pearl clutching about "competitive advantage" is just an excuse for bigotry. There is no logical reason to further malign our trans brothers and sisters, especially when they already face such obstacles in their lives.

Source for trans pop stat: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla....-united-states/

Aramoro
Jun 1, 2012






Smorgasbord posted:

No, at least not in any reputable source I can find.

I suspect based on the persistence of the claim there must have been a study that isolated one variable where the results were ambiguous enough or the sample size small enough to allow activists to fudge it but as per the IRB release the science is pretty clear that there is a significant imbalance in multiple areas.

There are just so many athletic advantages of being born and gone through puberty as a male that do not go away from taking hormones starting (and by no means ending) with bone density, lung capacity, strength, body frame. There is a reason why many mediocre recreational sportsmen immediately become elite female athletes as soon as they are allowed to compete as women after transitioning, even when they are decades older than the other elite women. It is impossible to not find those cases and understand why that is unless you are ideologically unwilling to see it.

Who? Which recreational male athletes becoming elite level female athletes? There are 2 female cyclists who are trans who have won things. Neither of them are particularly good.

But so many? That just smacks of trans panic, its just not happening with any numbers and not in a way thats affecting sport.

Caster Semeya has had more of an impact on sports than any trans athlete and she was born female.

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


Kate Weatherly, Laurel Hubbard, Terry Miller, Andraya Yearwood, countless other cases - basically google any sport and region + 'trans' and you'll find all the examples you could need.

Again though, set aside the nitpicking and go back to the core question - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

What do you say to the young girls in Connecticut who have been shut out from the podium and scholarships etc because a couple of male sprinters declared themselves female and now dominate every race? What do you say to the commonwealth games weightlifters at the height of their physical ability who are beaten by Laurel Hubbard who had 40 years of physical development as a male then comes across in middle age and instantly wins silvers and golds in big events? How about the powerlifters whose world records are instantly crushed by trans lifters who were mediocre lifters as men? What do you say to any young female athlete who wants to pursue a career in sport and can't even voice an objection to all of this without being attacked?

tarbrush
Feb 7, 2011

But Schefter said they Love Herbert?!


The RFU evidently disagrees

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...vels-in-england

Unimpressed
Feb 13, 2013



Smorgasbord posted:


What do you say to the young girls in Connecticut who have been shut out from the podium and scholarships etc because a couple of male sprinters declared themselves female and now dominate every race?

Without getting into the merits or otherwise of your argument, do you really think trans people just suddenly declare themselves to be of the other gender? That has to be one of the stupidest things you've posted here on our glorious comedy forum.

Vagabundo
Mar 20, 2007

Donncha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Donncha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?


Smorgasbord posted:

Kate Weatherly, Laurel Hubbard, Terry Miller, Andraya Yearwood, countless other cases - basically google any sport and region + 'trans' and you'll find all the examples you could need.

Again though, set aside the nitpicking and go back to the core question - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

What do you say to the young girls in Connecticut who have been shut out from the podium and scholarships etc because a couple of male sprinters declared themselves female and now dominate every race? What do you say to the commonwealth games weightlifters at the height of their physical ability who are beaten by Laurel Hubbard who had 40 years of physical development as a male then comes across in middle age and instantly wins silvers and golds in big events? How about the powerlifters whose world records are instantly crushed by trans lifters who were mediocre lifters as men? What do you say to any young female athlete who wants to pursue a career in sport and can't even voice an objection to all of this without being attacked?

gently caress off, Ani O’Brien.

Vagabundo
Mar 20, 2007

Donncha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Donncha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?


Unimpressed posted:

Without getting into the merits or otherwise of your argument, do you really think trans people just suddenly declare themselves to be of the other gender? That has to be one of the stupidest things you've posted here on our glorious comedy forum.

Not to mention, the fact that the poor Connecticut girls “shut out” of the podium are competing against and beating the trans runners - who’ve apparently since quit (can’t imagine why ).

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news...n-case/2223944/

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


As expected, it's straight to the nitpicking on terminology while completely ignoring the central question. I apologise if I don't always get the terminology 100% correct, it aint easy.

Andraya Yearwood was born a male, went through puberty as a male, has taken zero steps towards a physical/hormonal transition of any kind. She sees herself as female which is absolutely no problem for me up until the point she insists she be allowed to compete and beat girls in events for girls. There isn't even a transition there she is a biological male in a sports bra clowning on biological girls.

Once again - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

turntabler
Sep 10, 2011


Unimpressed posted:

That has to be one of the stupidest things you've posted here on our glorious comedy forum.

Wallabies are gonna beat the all blacks at Eden Park this weekend.

Charles 2 of Spain
Nov 7, 2017



Vagabundo posted:

gently caress off

Charles 2 of Spain
Nov 7, 2017



What's to stop me just declaring myself female so I can win some sports. All I have to do is endure the mountains of abuse and have everyone question me if I win a match.

Unimpressed
Feb 13, 2013



Smorgasbord posted:

As expected, it's straight to the nitpicking on terminology while completely ignoring the central question. I apologise if I don't always get the terminology 100% correct, it aint easy.

Andraya Yearwood was born a male, went through puberty as a male, has taken zero steps towards a physical/hormonal transition of any kind. She sees herself as female which is absolutely no problem for me up until the point she insists she be allowed to compete and beat girls in events for girls. There isn't even a transition there she is a biological male in a sports bra clowning on biological girls.

Once again - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

So I'll do something stupid now and try and engage in a serious, nuanced way on Something Awful.

First a couple of points: 1. I have only found a bit to read about this, but looking at the video, I'm not sure it's right to say they have taken no steps whatsoever, 2. these are high school aged children and there may be restrictions on their ability to do so.

But more importantly, if you make a rule that some transition has to take place, then what exactly is the right amount of transition treatment that you would feel comfortable with? Whatever your point of comfort on the transition treatment axis, someone else will have another point. Some people will not care at all about the extent of it, while others will never be satisfied. At the end of the day, these girls aren't choosing to be girls for the fame and glory of winning a high school sprint race. Their "choice", which is more a brace recognition of who they really are, carries a huge weight of pain, discrimination and physical and emotional difficulty, potentially for the rest of their lives. Sure, there is probably a point in which a biological male having undertaken no transition treatment participating in female sports is unfair to the female participants, but it would be way more unfair, hurtful and damaging for them to be excluded, just as affirmative action and gender quotas sometimes create individual unfair outcomes but create an overall good.

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


Unimpressed posted:

So I'll do something stupid now and try and engage in a serious, nuanced way on Something Awful.

First a couple of points: 1. I have only found a bit to read about this, but looking at the video, I'm not sure it's right to say they have taken no steps whatsoever, 2. these are high school aged children and there may be restrictions on their ability to do so.

But more importantly, if you make a rule that some transition has to take place, then what exactly is the right amount of transition treatment that you would feel comfortable with? Whatever your point of comfort on the transition treatment axis, someone else will have another point. Some people will not care at all about the extent of it, while others will never be satisfied. At the end of the day, these girls aren't choosing to be girls for the fame and glory of winning a high school sprint race. Their "choice", which is more a brace recognition of who they really are, carries a huge weight of pain, discrimination and physical and emotional difficulty, potentially for the rest of their lives. Sure, there is probably a point in which a biological male having undertaken no transition treatment participating in female sports is unfair to the female participants, but it would be way more unfair, hurtful and damaging for them to be excluded, just as affirmative action and gender quotas sometimes create individual unfair outcomes but create an overall good.

No level of hormone treatment removes the 'scaffolding' advantages that a transwoman has over a biological woman due to their male development so for me it makes no sense to be anywhere but the 'never satisfied' category if you in any way care about biological women's place in sport. As far as I can see the only viable answers are you either have a third category (men, biological women, trans), or you have 2 categories - biological women and open entry. Anything else is ludicrously unfair to biological women.

Once again I note everyone who disagrees with me has refused to engage with the fundamental question in this whole issue - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

Aramoro
Jun 1, 2012






Smorgasbord posted:

Once again I note everyone who disagrees with me has refused to engage with the fundamental question in this whole issue - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

We don't, we have Female within specific limitations and Male within specific limitations. Caster Semeya is not allowed to compete as she was born, she is required to take hormones to be allowed to compete.

You made the point that so many men were just pretending to be women so they could be elite level athletes and your top example is a youth athlete? The fact that it's easy to name every single trans athletes should make it very obvious to you that this is not a common thing. I mean correct me if I'm wrong but it does look like you claim that Yearwood is claiming to be female with the intent to compete against women. That is her entire motivation for doing it.

That also doesn't address Rugbys reasoning for not allowing trans athletes which is injury risk. But that makes no sense because apparently its perfectly safe for Jennifer Troncy to line up against players who are literally twice her size.

BabyFur Denny
Mar 18, 2003


Smorgasbord posted:

Once again I note everyone who disagrees with me has refused to engage with the fundamental question in this whole issue - What is the reason we have a separate category for women's sport if it is not to separate female bodied people from male bodied people for safety and competitive reasons?

Ok to engage with you here:
It's not for safety reasons as evidenced by the many sports where this separation exists but there are no safety concerns, e.g. running or tennis. So we can focus on the competitive reasons.
Sports are separated into men's and women's competition, not female bodied and male bodied. Example: the WNBA is the "women's national Basketball League", not the "Female bodied national Basketball League"
Therefore letting all women compete in women's competition does not violate the underlying idea of letting women compete without having to go against men.

Finally, every top athlete (whether man or woman) has some sort of medical or biological precondition that gives them an advantage over the average person. Why would you single out one specific and very rare condition out of all those, and make that one unacceptable, for any other reason than transphobia?

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


Aramoro posted:

You made the point that so many men were just pretending to be women so they could be elite level athletes and your top example is a youth athlete? The fact that it's easy to name every single trans athletes should make it very obvious to you that this is not a common thing. I mean correct me if I'm wrong but it does look like you claim that Yearwood is claiming to be female with the intent to compete against women. That is her entire motivation for doing it.


I absolutely did not make any such point, gently caress off with this bullshit.

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


BabyFur Denny posted:

Ok to engage with you here:
It's not for safety reasons as evidenced by the many sports where this separation exists but there are no safety concerns, e.g. running or tennis. So we can focus on the competitive reasons.
Sports are separated into men's and women's competition, not female bodied and male bodied. Example: the WNBA is the "women's national Basketball League", not the "Female bodied national Basketball League"
Therefore letting all women compete in women's competition does not violate the underlying idea of letting women compete without having to go against men.


Finally, every top athlete (whether man or woman) has some sort of medical or biological precondition that gives them an advantage over the average person. Why would you single out one specific and very rare condition out of all those, and make that one unacceptable, for any other reason than transphobia?

Semantics again, firstly when women's leagues were created there was no way of forseeing the exponential growth of transgenderism, or the fairly widespread acceptance of self-identification being all that is required to be a woman.

I'm asking WHY we need to have separate competitions for women and you are all twisting into knots avoiding answering it directly because you are ideologically unwilling to concede it is because there is a massive gulf in strength and athletic ability between people born as men and people born as women at every percentile that cannot corrected by any amount of hormone treatment, and therefore it is not reasonable to allow transwomen to compete against biological women when the biological women object.

edit: to address the final paragraph - because natural variations between biologically born and developed women is a whole different thing than that between biologically born and developed won v biologically born and developed men - it is basically every possible advantage all at once and is obviously against the intention of the reason why sport is separated by gender in the first place.

Smorgasbord fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Oct 15, 2020

oh no computer
May 27, 2003



Smorgasbord posted:

No level of hormone treatment removes the 'scaffolding' advantages that a transwoman has over a biological woman due to their male development
Out of interest do you have a source for this? Or is it just "common sense"?

Smorgasbord
Jun 18, 2004

Our review identified changes needed to be made and, in Stephen, we have a coach who has a reputation for demanding the highest standards.


oh no computer posted:

Out of interest do you have a source for this? Or is it just "common sense"?

Google anything to do with male v female strength, height, bone density, lung capacity, grip strength, muscle mass, etc, basically any and every athletic thing. Taking hormones for 12 months or 12 years or 120 years doesn't reverse those things. Not my job to be your research assistant but even starting with wikipedia - transgender athletes will get you plenty of sources. The case for transwomen's inclusion in women's sport is ideologically driven, not science driven.

oh no computer
May 27, 2003



Smorgasbord posted:

Taking hormones for 12 months or 12 years or 120 years doesn't reverse those things.
This is what I'm after a source for. Thanks.

Seksiness
Aug 24, 2006
I screwed your grandma and all I got was this lousy custom title... and herpes

oh no computer posted:

This is what I'm after a source for. Thanks.

The World Rugby Transgender guideline is pretty thorough - in fact I don't think any other sport has gone into this level of detail trying to find an acceptable solution. It freely admits that the sample size of 'elite' transgender athletes is small which explains it's recommendation to err on the side of caution and reassess annually.

Ross Tucker has been very good on twitter trying to explain the science behind the decision and how they came to this conclusion.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/...596707041239044

and

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/...915789530497025

From what I see the RFU has yet to provide any counter evidence for it's decision to allow trans players at a community level which is worrying and shows that the decision was ideological and not science based. I hope in the coming years enough evidence can be found to put the issue to rest, but even if the science can unequivocally agree one way or another I suspect that there will be groups of individuals who would not be happy.

BabyFur Denny
Mar 18, 2003


oh no computer posted:

This is what I'm after a source for. Thanks.

https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blo...rness-in-sport/
here is a long article that includes some sources showing that the advantage diminishes very quickly, within one year of testosterone deprivation transwomen are on a similar strength level as cis women.

bessantj
Jul 27, 2004




Seksiness posted:

I hope in the coming years enough evidence can be found to put the issue to rest

Sorry just to take one half line out of your entire post but i do agree with this. At the moment it's difficult to get good studies, this 2016 paper says.

quote:

Conclusion
Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.

I was interested to read this one.

Which says

quote:

The inclusion of elite transwomen athletes in sport is controversial. The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women. Science demonstrates that high testosterone and other male physiology provides a performance advantage in sport suggesting that transwomen retain some of that advantage. To determine whether the advantage is unfair necessitates an ethical analysis of the principles of inclusion and fairness. Particularly important is whether the advantage held by transwomen is a tolerable or intolerable unfairness. We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness.

The testosterone level seems to be the thing they're focusing on and cutting it seems the obvious solution. This would probably be no problem for trans athletes as this statement suggests that trans people aim for testosterone far below 10 nmol/L anyway. It does seem like it would impact athletes like Caster Semeya though.

bessantj fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Oct 15, 2020

drunk leprechaun
May 7, 2007
sobriety is for the weak and the stupid

Smorgasbord posted:

Google anything to do with male v female strength, height, bone density, lung capacity, grip strength, muscle mass, etc, basically any and every athletic thing. Taking hormones for 12 months or 12 years or 120 years doesn't reverse those things. Not my job to be your research assistant but even starting with wikipedia - transgender athletes will get you plenty of sources. The case for transwomen's inclusion in women's sport is ideologically driven, not science driven.

Actually it is 100% your job to provide evidence to back up your claims. That's how discourse works.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

drunk leprechaun
May 7, 2007
sobriety is for the weak and the stupid

I think what galls me personally about this is how people shout "fairness" and "advantages" in the transgender scare. If it is about that there where is the outrage about access to coaching, nutrition, and training? Where is the concern about much larger athletes going up against much smaller athletes in collision sports? Where is the concern about people like Michael Phelps who is several standard deviations from the human norm in ways that are critical to his success in swimming? Without people shouting about those things too I have to conclude that fairness is just a smokescreen. It never was about fairness. It is about discrimination and making one of the most marginalized communities on the planet go back to being invisible.

In looking at this I found a good meta-study that looks at 8 articles and 31 policies. Like is below, but the bit that struck me is quoted. It's from the Results section of the abstract.

Actual loving scientists posted:

In relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence-based.

So to me they are saying that most trans athletes are being excluded for non-science-based reasons and that the primary effect of them is a negative impact on the trans athletes and their ability to participate. They do say that more research is needed which I agree with, but this part really struck me and broke my heart.

In the end people who shout about how sports should be fair miss the point. Doesn't rugby like to hold itself up as a bastion of inclusion? Don't we like to talk about the lessons learned on the pitch and in the sheds? Outside of a small number of professionals aren't most rugby players playing for the love of the game, camaraderie, and to get some exercise? I think that these values are equally as important, if not more so, that supposed shouts about fairness that haven't been proven. In fact I would rather that we be more welcoming and open to all marginalized groups. Anything else just strikes me as bigotry pure and simple.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply