Well it's not entirely your fault. Its just a problem when you have political motivations giving you a preconceived notion. Also I don't know if you understand the burden of proof concept. In this case, if your claiming someone with a penis can compete fairly with women that goes against the way things have been set before so you need to prove it's fair rather than me proving its not fair. The one other issue I had is that you didn't want any of my sources because their biased and then you sent me a bunch of super liberal sources.
> you have political motivations giving you a preconceived notion
I mean, so did you, and so does everybody else on the planet. We can't help being biased, we can only try to avoid letting it influence our rational thinking. I try my best, but of course, I'm not perfect. It's part of being human.
> Also I don't know if you understand the burden of proof concept. In this case, if your claiming someone with a penis can compete fairly with women that goes against the way things have been set before so you need to prove it's fair rather than me proving its not fair.
Sure, and I tried to throughout the course of the debate. That's kind of the idea.
> The one other issue I had is that you didn't want any of my sources because their biased
Mostly because they didn't actually cite any data or scientific research in general that I can find, actually, but maybe I missed something.
Your sources being biased doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, not unless one can make a compelling argument that the bias is harming the validity of the claims being made (which, sometimes, is the case).
> and then you sent me a bunch of super liberal sources
I agree that the non-scientific articles I linked were generally from left-leaning sources, but I did try to check them on Media Bias to make sure their ability to report facts was not compromised by their liberalness. Also, those were more analytics / explanations than evidence.
My main piece of evidence, a recent systematic review of multiple scientific studies (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y), is not biased (that I am aware of). You certainly haven't made such an argument, or actually, acknowledged that it existed at all. The same is true for the other study I listed. Explaining why something is unreliable is one thing, ignoring it is another.
I'm not trying to be hostile, I just want to get to the bottom of it. I enjoy working on my debate skills. I hope you have a nice day!
Well at least your being nicer about It than most people, but still the answer to me is painfully obvious. I have seen enough people with dicks beat the shit out of real women to know that it's at least POSSIBLE that there is an advantage. And if it's even possible that there is, then they should not be allowed to compete. You realize that in some federations you don't even have to do hormones! It's possible that after a shit ton of hormones it may be close enough to fair but my point is that there is jo way for sure, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the real women getting their ass kicked.
So would you think it's fair if I grew out my hair and competed as a woman a MONTH from now in powerlifting with no hormones? Because where I compete in powerlifting, I could actually do this if I felt like a woman. I would beat every record by over 100 pounds, that's at least 20% better. If you think THAT is fair, than idk what to tell you.
I'm glad you're concerned about female athletes, but I think you're missing a key point here.
> it's at least POSSIBLE that there is an advantage
> there is no way to know [sic] for sure
Sure, it seems reasonable to suggest that it may not be fair. I agree. But saying that there is "no way to know for sure" is totally wrong - that's why we test things and collect data and all that good stuff. So we did, and according to the research I found (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y), current regulations are fair.
That's the great thing about science, not just here, but in general. We can use our intellect to overcome the biases that cloud our everyday thinking. Find results that are often counterintuitive. There absolutely is a way to know. That's the best part of being alive today.
> in some federations you don't even have to do hormones
Ok, and if it proves to be problematic, the rules can be changed. I'm not an expert, but I imagine that the more professional / important an event is, the stricter the rules will be. For example, the Olympics has clear-cut regulations on testosterone levels in transwomen.
I'd also mention the fact that transwomen are actually extremely underrepresented in high-level sports. The social disadvantages they face are immense.
> I could actually do this if I felt like a woman
OK, so, being trans is not just "feeling like a woman", but in any case, your particular powerlifting regulations aren't really my concern (or particularly relevant at large). If the rules are unfair, the rules should be changed - but letting transwomen compete, after hormones, is not unfair. As technology improves, this will hopefully become a nonissue anyways.
I don't disagree with anything in that study. They think the difference was exaggerated which I think is fair to say. But they never said there was no difference at all. They try to argue that their is other social factors and shit like that they have to deal with which may be true, but I don't think it's fair to pander to them and let them compete because of that when it's still physiologically unfair. The authors of this study don't claim to "know for sure" yet you think you do by reading their paper?
It's true that the athletic events with higher stakes regulate better, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable in my opinion. If someone joins some small powerlifting meet as a biological man and breaks all the female records I still care a lot because that's just unfair. I won't tolerate unfairness just because it's a small federation.
Being a trans female is 'feeling like a woman' That's the only requirement. Hormones, surgery, what you wear ect. are all optional.
> I don't disagree with anything in that study. They think the difference was exaggerated which I think is fair to say. But they never said there was no difference at all.
"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."
Basically, "need more info, let's default to not discriminating". It states pretty clearly that there's no evidence so far to suggest a significant advantage (and quite a bit of evidence to suggest there's a significant social disadvantage).
> The authors of this study don't claim to "know for sure" yet you think you do by reading their paper?
You're right, I phrased that badly. We can't be 100% sure on this, yet. And science doesn't always mean knowing for sure either. I misspoke, I apologize.
> I won't tolerate unfairness just because it's a small federation
I mean, that's a totally reasonable idea. I don't think too many people would argue against that. I was more making the point that consequences from unfairness are minimized as the stakes grow higher. And like I said, if your area has unfair rules, they should be changed. On a lower budget, requiring proof of X years of hormone therapy / whatever is probably easier to regulate than testosterone levels, although idk the details, of course. Remember that there is a huge difference between adding such rules to keep the game fair, and barring transwomen outright.
> Being a trans female is 'feeling like a woman' That's the only requirement. Hormones, surgery, what you wear ect. are all optional.
I mean, that's technically true, just phrased in a somewhat condescending way. Maybe I'm just reading the tone wrong. I don't mean to misrepresent what you're saying.
I am a perverted deviant
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well it's not entirely your fault. Its just a problem when you have political motivations giving you a preconceived notion. Also I don't know if you understand the burden of proof concept. In this case, if your claiming someone with a penis can compete fairly with women that goes against the way things have been set before so you need to prove it's fair rather than me proving its not fair. The one other issue I had is that you didn't want any of my sources because their biased and then you sent me a bunch of super liberal sources.
--
palehorse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
> you have political motivations giving you a preconceived notion
I mean, so did you, and so does everybody else on the planet. We can't help being biased, we can only try to avoid letting it influence our rational thinking. I try my best, but of course, I'm not perfect. It's part of being human.
> Also I don't know if you understand the burden of proof concept. In this case, if your claiming someone with a penis can compete fairly with women that goes against the way things have been set before so you need to prove it's fair rather than me proving its not fair.
Sure, and I tried to throughout the course of the debate. That's kind of the idea.
> The one other issue I had is that you didn't want any of my sources because their biased
Mostly because they didn't actually cite any data or scientific research in general that I can find, actually, but maybe I missed something.
Your sources being biased doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, not unless one can make a compelling argument that the bias is harming the validity of the claims being made (which, sometimes, is the case).
> and then you sent me a bunch of super liberal sources
I agree that the non-scientific articles I linked were generally from left-leaning sources, but I did try to check them on Media Bias to make sure their ability to report facts was not compromised by their liberalness. Also, those were more analytics / explanations than evidence.
My main piece of evidence, a recent systematic review of multiple scientific studies (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y), is not biased (that I am aware of). You certainly haven't made such an argument, or actually, acknowledged that it existed at all. The same is true for the other study I listed. Explaining why something is unreliable is one thing, ignoring it is another.
I'm not trying to be hostile, I just want to get to the bottom of it. I enjoy working on my debate skills. I hope you have a nice day!
--
Doesnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well at least your being nicer about It than most people, but still the answer to me is painfully obvious. I have seen enough people with dicks beat the shit out of real women to know that it's at least POSSIBLE that there is an advantage. And if it's even possible that there is, then they should not be allowed to compete. You realize that in some federations you don't even have to do hormones! It's possible that after a shit ton of hormones it may be close enough to fair but my point is that there is jo way for sure, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the real women getting their ass kicked.
So would you think it's fair if I grew out my hair and competed as a woman a MONTH from now in powerlifting with no hormones? Because where I compete in powerlifting, I could actually do this if I felt like a woman. I would beat every record by over 100 pounds, that's at least 20% better. If you think THAT is fair, than idk what to tell you.
--
palehorse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm glad you're concerned about female athletes, but I think you're missing a key point here.
> it's at least POSSIBLE that there is an advantage
> there is no way to know [sic] for sure
Sure, it seems reasonable to suggest that it may not be fair. I agree. But saying that there is "no way to know for sure" is totally wrong - that's why we test things and collect data and all that good stuff. So we did, and according to the research I found (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y), current regulations are fair.
That's the great thing about science, not just here, but in general. We can use our intellect to overcome the biases that cloud our everyday thinking. Find results that are often counterintuitive. There absolutely is a way to know. That's the best part of being alive today.
> in some federations you don't even have to do hormones
Ok, and if it proves to be problematic, the rules can be changed. I'm not an expert, but I imagine that the more professional / important an event is, the stricter the rules will be. For example, the Olympics has clear-cut regulations on testosterone levels in transwomen.
I'd also mention the fact that transwomen are actually extremely underrepresented in high-level sports. The social disadvantages they face are immense.
> I could actually do this if I felt like a woman
OK, so, being trans is not just "feeling like a woman", but in any case, your particular powerlifting regulations aren't really my concern (or particularly relevant at large). If the rules are unfair, the rules should be changed - but letting transwomen compete, after hormones, is not unfair. As technology improves, this will hopefully become a nonissue anyways.
--
Doesnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't disagree with anything in that study. They think the difference was exaggerated which I think is fair to say. But they never said there was no difference at all. They try to argue that their is other social factors and shit like that they have to deal with which may be true, but I don't think it's fair to pander to them and let them compete because of that when it's still physiologically unfair. The authors of this study don't claim to "know for sure" yet you think you do by reading their paper?
It's true that the athletic events with higher stakes regulate better, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable in my opinion. If someone joins some small powerlifting meet as a biological man and breaks all the female records I still care a lot because that's just unfair. I won't tolerate unfairness just because it's a small federation.
Being a trans female is 'feeling like a woman' That's the only requirement. Hormones, surgery, what you wear ect. are all optional.
--
palehorse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
> I don't disagree with anything in that study. They think the difference was exaggerated which I think is fair to say. But they never said there was no difference at all.
"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."
Basically, "need more info, let's default to not discriminating". It states pretty clearly that there's no evidence so far to suggest a significant advantage (and quite a bit of evidence to suggest there's a significant social disadvantage).
> The authors of this study don't claim to "know for sure" yet you think you do by reading their paper?
You're right, I phrased that badly. We can't be 100% sure on this, yet. And science doesn't always mean knowing for sure either. I misspoke, I apologize.
> I won't tolerate unfairness just because it's a small federation
I mean, that's a totally reasonable idea. I don't think too many people would argue against that. I was more making the point that consequences from unfairness are minimized as the stakes grow higher. And like I said, if your area has unfair rules, they should be changed. On a lower budget, requiring proof of X years of hormone therapy / whatever is probably easier to regulate than testosterone levels, although idk the details, of course. Remember that there is a huge difference between adding such rules to keep the game fair, and barring transwomen outright.
> Being a trans female is 'feeling like a woman' That's the only requirement. Hormones, surgery, what you wear ect. are all optional.
I mean, that's technically true, just phrased in a somewhat condescending way. Maybe I'm just reading the tone wrong. I don't mean to misrepresent what you're saying.