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

[cph]

**Although to reiterate so I'm not misunderstood in the context of this thread, the existential reality of sexual dysmorphia is unrelated to whether a particular individual more properly competes in the men's or women's division of a sport.

Right now, these issues are fundamentally coupled. People who are against rights for transgendered individuals in general are using the "common sense" issue of competitive fairness in sports as a way of attacking transgendered individuals in general.

Take, for example, this article:

Lots of people are noticing: Female athletes crushed by ?women who were once men?

This is from a site that has a clear anti-transgender agenda, as evidenced by headlines like, "Ewww, creepy: 1st 'transgender' doll for kids," "The dark, untold story of transgenderism," and "Obama's transgender 'obsession' is 'literally insane'." Do you think women are going to take this article seriously given the source?

As long as this issue is coupled to a general anti-trans agenda, it won't be seen as an honest effort to maintain competitive fairness. Maybe when women feel that transgendered individuals are no longer under heavy political attack, they'll be more inclined to detach this issue from LGBTQ rights in general.

Really, the thread title says it all. This decision primarily affects the women who are competing. They're the ones who should make it (along with other decisions relating to women's sports), and men should respect the results whether or not we agree.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yeah, I knew after I posted it that one of about 4 of you people would read the WND-part, stop right there, and post this ad hominem nonsense. This has got nothing to do with a "general anti-trans agenda" -- it has to do with men competing in the womens' division, and that is all. The problem is real, and like I said, it's up to the women to fix it. If they're happy with getting beaten by rules designed for political correctness, fine. None of my business. But this must be fixed or sports is in trouble.

[cph]

Yeah, I knew after I posted it that one of about 4 of you people would read the WND-part, stop right there, and post this ad hominem nonsense. This has got nothing to do with a "general anti-trans agenda" -- it has to do with men competing in the womens' division, and that is all. The problem is real, and like I said, it's up to the women to fix it. If they're happy with getting beaten by rules designed for political correctness, fine. None of my business. But this must be fixed or sports is in trouble.

That's the way you see it. Other people might not see it that way—right or wrong. Other people might see it as part of a concerted attack on a class of people they want to protect. The source of the article will influence readers' perception. It would be a lot easier to sell this if it weren't coupled to other articles like the ones I mentioned.

And for the record, I read the whole article.

[Mark Rippetoe]

That's the way you see it. Other people might not see it that way—right or wrong.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what I think, and it doesn't matter what you think unless you're a woman who competes against them.

[David Kirkham]

Are you mormon?

I'm curious what Mormons have to do with this discussion?

[Steve Hill]

If your goal is perfect fairness, I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron. Assuming your goal is some version of limited fairness, why not just accept that there are infinite versions of unfairness, and that we all choose to compete on the playing field that's as level as we care to have it. You'll have to understand that enough others may not share your view to make your version of fair a viable athletic league, or whatever, but there are certainly powerlifting federations that slice "fair" pretty thin. The MTF Oly lifter met the rules in her sport - if you don't like the rules, and think enough others agree, start your own organization to compete with hers.

Noted for the record that you did not answer the question.

Yeah, I knew after I posted it that one of about 4 of you people would read the WND-part, stop right there, and post this ad hominem nonsense. This has got nothing to do with a "general anti-trans agenda" -- it has to do with men competing in the womens' division, and that is all. The problem is real, and like I said, it's up to the women to fix it. If they're happy with getting beaten by rules designed for political correctness, fine. None of my business. But this must be fixed or sports is in trouble.

I don't know. By nature of the fact that women's sports will more resemble men's, they'll at least be less boring.

[chrisd]

I absolutely agree with this. When China fields a team of MTF athletes, it will happen.

When china fields a team of MTF athletes, they'll probably lose to Thailand, Indonesia and the USA who have a larger pool to draw on. The chances of the former Soviet countries doing this would seem to be quite low.

Perhaps we just need to update the Wilks formula to account for androgen levels, levels of androgen receptors and a few other things.

Anyway, I wish to identify as a ten year old and to this end, I intend to go back to school and enrol in year 6. Let's get rid of age discrimination as well. Medals here I come.

[wal]

The Olympics will never be the same.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/fi...2011_Final.pdf

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documen...ogenism-en.pdf

[Eric K]

Ha. I don't see why that is so. I'm not saying every business has to serve everyone all the time no matter what - not even close.

When you brought up the coercion of the baker via force, you compared an emotional harm (the "inconvenience" of being refused service) to a material harm (paying legal fees). That's not the correct comparison. The correct comparison is between the emotional harm to the customer refused service and the emotional harm to the baker of baking a cake for someone whom he prefers not to serve. The customer could go to another bakery, okay, but the baker could just bake the cake, also. Those are the two harms that are relevant here, neither of them material. And I don't think there's a strong case to make that one is merely an "inconvenience" while the other is not.

All I'm saying is that, as a matter of principle, public businesses in this country should be constrained from discriminating against people on the basis of "identity." That's it. If a business owner doesn't like [type of person] and one walks into his bakery, he has several options. A) Serve that person as he would serve any other customer (the easiest choice, and while it may constitute some kind of emotional harm, I'd argue it's not greater than the harm caused to the customer by refusing service). B) Refuse them service based on their specific conduct/actions (they were rude, etc). C) Refuse them service on the basis of their identity, in violation of the law, and risk the consequences.

If they choose C, that doesn't mean I think they should be sued out of house and home -- in most cases, I think the consequences will be negligible. But I do think it's important that the law of the land not be that it is permissible to discriminate based on identity.

Are you seriously saying you think that if the court ordered a bakery to bake a cake they didn't want to, and the bakery still refused, that the "consequences [would] be negligible?"

[johnnys]

Noted for the record that you did not answer the question.

Sorry for being unclear. Yes, the hormone program you describe is unfair. My point is that it's likewise unfair that some women are raised lifting and being fed on beef and milk, while others ate rice.

Rules draw lines, and no line is perfectly fair in every sense of the word, and people will always try to exploit the imperfections. I'm ok with that, just like every soccer and NE Pats fan is ok with flopping and deflated footballs/tapped radios. Otherwise Lamar Gant isn't really great until he gets his arms shortened and back straightened.