This stupid bullshit will continue until Women decide to make it stop.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It would be hilarious if China enters a soccer team in the next Women's World Cup that's all M-to-F transsexuals, and wins the final 7-0.

It will take such an event to slap these fools awake, I'm afraid.

[Eric K]

There are a lot of other concerns involved here besides just OL, or competition, or sports at all.

There could be, I guess. I'm not particularly threatened or concerned about people who want to look like cats.

Both involve the essential similarity that the sufferer believes that their mind and body are not in "synch" and they want to be something that they are simply, factually, NOT.

Both do share superficial similarities, but with fundamental differences that I outlined. That one has male or female genitalia says little about the self their brain perceives, and says nothing about the cause of any potential dysmorphia between the two or what underlying physiological conditions might exist.

So your arguments here seem to be based on 1) being only ONE generation away from a similar physiology, and 2) and natural differences in development.
But those are self defeating arguments because:
1) Why an arbitrary limit of one generation away ? Why not 2 ?...10 ?...100 ?? Back in evolutionary trees ? If the person truly self-identifies as a cat, how can you deny them their "cat rights"? Why is "single-generation-acceptance" essential, but "multi-generational bigotry" OK ?

First, I didn't call you a bigot, drop the persecution complex. Second, any delineation will be arbitrary, but the generational separation is objectively different in a non-trivial way. Further, no primate has any cat ancestors, period.

2) There are indeed natural difference in development, and some people REALLY DO look a lot more like cats than others.
These arguments are just as logical as yours, and only extend the arguments.

No, they're not. Any semblance between a person and a cat is superficial because humans don't have cat ancestors. We all do have ancestors of the same species and opposite sex, however. And as I pointed out, our biology relies on a non-trivial sequence of chemical cues to turn a generic body plan into one sex or the other. The notion that some aspects of this process do not affect all parts of the body symmetrically is not at all an outlandish notion and probably explains a great deal about why people of the same sex and gender are so different from each other.

So, cats are a little too far away on the evolutionary scale ? OK....how about chimpanzees ?

Cats are not in our ancestry. The common ancestor of cats and humans is just as closely related to us as to cats. It's also as closely related to us as dogs, bears, and seals. But it wasn't any of those things. I don't understand what's so hard about that.

Why are you able to make the argument that it is OK if it is only ONE step in the geneology ? One step is still one step of DIFFERENCE and a male son is factually not a female.

Are you more like your parents or your third cousins? Why or why not? If the only way to make a son was to introduce chemicals at key stages of the pregnancy, administered by a well-trained physician, do you think there could be a slight risk of side effects? Is this somehow different because the cues come from dumb genes?

Then, you seem to admit that racial differences are just "superficial", so why can't I claim I am turning Japanese because "my brain is developed that way"?

"Seem to admit?" When have I ever denied? Are you having a separate conversation and imagining my responses? Perhaps you don't understand what superficial means in this context? Describe what it means to "feel Japanese." And is that cultural or physiological? Where in embryonic development do chemical cues shape our culture?

There is very little difference in the development of a Japanese person and a non-Japanese person. Are you suggesting that there is just as much difference between Japanese and non-Japanese as between males and females? That seems absurd. My point is explicitly not that there is no difference, it is explicitly that there is a great deal of difference but that those differences develop from the same body plan. Do you not see how that has the potential to cause some form of dysmorphia?

Finally we should note that there really are persons with hirsutism, and a syndrome that causes walking on all fours. But I would contend that they are still "humans" and would discourage them from making the transition to Wolves.

I'm unfamiliar with that condition, nor do I see the relevance. And again, there is no wolf ancestry in any of the primate lineage. However, I have heard that babies born without sight will not try to walk on their own but will continue to crawl until specifically guided otherwise. Not sure if that matters to the discussion, though.

[Eric K]

Jenner never had "gender confirmation surgery." Still has C&Bs. Let's not discuss this further.

That's what I get for not keeping up with the tabloids. Dropping it is fine with me.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Ok, then your response seems off-topic given the content of Chebass' post. But, yeah Jenner got a lot of publicity. I roll my eyes at the Branjolina thing, too. So? Are you saying that he only had a sex change for that publicity? I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, just generally confused about what you're saying.

As you surmised, my response(s) were not about what Jenner wanted or did it for. They were about the advocacy industry that is determined to blur some very real biologic differences no matter what has to be turned on it's head in order to validate people's feelings about themselves. Publicity such as Jenner got is a marketing and propaganda tool to advance that advocacy. Sports, ethics, integrity, and common sense be damned.

[DannyP]

But it doesn't matter what the reason for their switch was. What matters is the fact that now, they are being compared to other lifters who are not on the same playing field.

Sure. All I said was that this is a very unlikely reason to make the transition. Hence, policies should be made on fairness of competition and that alone, and not assume that a whole lot of people are going to try and "game" the system.

[KennyRogers]

I knew it was only time before this issue took off. I remember the NCAA chiming in on the subject a several months ago and I thought to myself, what happens when a dude-turned/identifies-as chick wants to compete. It my opinion it muddies the competitive waters, thus causing me to lose interest and destroy the sport.


176357_f3bc752075f9725db1ab05aa5f26f6b8.jpg

[Steve Hill]

I'm not sure the position-for-position qualifier is relevant either. It may be true, when you impose that criterion, but wouldn't it be moot in the real world? I mean maybe the best female center could be better than the worst male guard.

I'm not sure you've thought through that clearly. You isolate for position because of different skills / size / etc needed for that position. You think a female center is all of a sudden going to be able to play guard? I don't think so. Accordingly, you HAVE to compare position-by-position. In any regard, there is no way the best female center on the planet would be as good a point guard as the worst point guard in the NBA. Period.

[Hawkpeter]

Do you honestly think someone would switch genders, and endure all the societal issues that accompany transition, to win WEIGHTLIFTING competition(s)? A weightlifting competition. This isn't the 1960s, where weightlifting was *slightly* popular because York had Grimek posing on the front cover of Strength & Health. It is a marginal sport at BEST, and even IF a competitor were to make it to the highest level of the sport (the Olympics), it isn't televised, and isn't likely to be televised in future games. And other than meatheads who think it is a fun activity, most people don't even know the sport exists. In magazines dedicated to strength (e.g., MILO), the women's division *might* get a half page of coverage, and only the occasional photo, and that's for competitions at the highest levels.

So if a competitor can demonstrate the proper concentration for the stated duration, who cares?

No, I don't think that someone would switch genders in order to win a sporting contest. Even if there were a large sum of money on offer; and in this case there wasn't. I think someone would have to have the psychology of transgenderism in order to go through this and they are exercising their personal liberty to do this which I encourage. What I am questioning, is the fairness of the regulations and the levels that have been set and decided upon.

I am no endocrinologist, clearly, but my original remarks had to do with comparing the situation of PED use. Long bans are in place, and even then there is much discussion about the long-term effects of a PED user and how they might hold on to certain adaptions long after their cycle has ended. In this situation, where the person has gone through 3 decades of physical development as a male, it appears unfair on competitors, as no female would have this kind of testosterone level and beneficial physical development. This creates a competitive advantage like that which a PED user is banned for.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am no endocrinologist, clearly, but my original remarks had to do with comparing the situation of PED use. Long bans are in place, and even then there is much discussion about the long-term effects of a PED user and how they might hold on to certain adaptions long after their cycle has ended. In this situation, where the person has gone through 3 decades of physical development as a male, it appears unfair on competitors, as no female would have this kind of testosterone level and beneficial physical development. This creates a competitive advantage like that which a PED user is banned for.

And who in the IOC doesn't actually know this? The craven fuckers do not care about fairness in competition -- they wish to appear to be fair politically.

[Matthew_888]

That one is tried and tested! Every anarchist will be armchair-diagnosed with OPD or antisocial personality disorder at one point in their life. A classic.
But do name an authority figure on this board, Matthew. Just one. I haven't seen my mother around here.

- Oddly enough, you cited the DSM which is the incarnation, in the worst way possible, of what an authority is.
- I did not name a specific criteria and yet, by citing the DSM, the one you do not respect is: "defiance against authority".
- It gets even funnier since an "authority" is a non-concept for an anarchist as far as I know,
- And my post should have made obvious that the DSM is a big pile of shit, essentially controlled by cupid idiots to prescribe drugs to the supposedly mentally challenged.
- The DSM is so stupid that according to it, the DSM authors are most likely mentally ill.
- Last but not least:

People unfortunately do not care to be empathetic...

- Empathy is what we experience when we see someone apparently suffering and mentally suffer with him.
- E.g.: without a high dose of empathy, it would be hard for a women to take care of its own child since it's so difficult to know when a baby does not feel good.
- Empathy is literally a form of mind control: untamed, empathy makes you do things that you would not otherwise.
- One of the most shocking example of empathetic abuse is this terrible picture of that one Syrian child, face in the sand, dead.
- I would bet that almost everyone knows this picture and feel a bit of discomfort remembering it.
- What's the order of magnitude of the number of dead children as a result of abuse and neglect, in the U.S. ?[1]
- Empathy is probably one of the worst enemy of any anarchist since it literally makes you loose your mind.
- Empathy is one of the most efficient mind control tool one can have (test it yourself: spill a tear in front of your mother)

[1]: minimum 1500/y