You will eventually discover that there is no middle ground. Either you support taking sports from females and giving them to male-bodied people, or you support the LGBTAlphabet agenda 110% without exception.
Human reproductive biology is not a construction. You don't call the sunset a "construction," you construct the word "sunset" to mark the phenomenon. The world is made of stuff, not words. We are made of blood and meat and bone, not words. Nature does not give a damn what words we use to mark or describe its properties. Male and female bodies are the result of human evolution as a sexually dimorphic species. No amount of "construction" is ever going to make male bodies in female sports fair, ever.
You will have to choose one or the other. The lines are drawn. You are standing in no man's land -- "neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."
A major concern of mine is that transgender (male to female) athletes have the advantage of years of elevated male hormones that have built bone and muscle mass. Should they be able to compete with those who have not have this advantage? How would we regard a female who had taken testosterone in her formative years, but was now drug free?
Cheers Roger. It's an important issue. Sport really requires contestants to be competing roughly on an equal basis to be meaningful, Some (eg boxing) have weight divisions to ensure this.
A really interesting point, I'd love some perspective on what we could possibly categorise as 'equal' or 'fair' in this sense. I think it's now unarguable there is some level of residual advantage post-transition (for trans women) but is this worse than any other advantage that many elite athletes enjoy? For example, Sharron Davies is a vocal critic in this area yet she is significantly taller than the average female, attended a public school with a professional swimming set up and therefore received arguably elite coaching from the age of 8 (some of which she attributes to her success). This is no slight on her achievements or character, just an observation that those advantages which appear fundamental to her success are fine whilst others are not.
We've seen it recently with Nike's 'Air Zoom Victory' causing records to tumble in athletics, it will be interesting to see if they provoke the same level of public interest/ outrage!
You will eventually discover that there is no middle ground. Either you support taking sports from females and giving them to male-bodied people, or you support the LGBTAlphabet agenda 110% without exception.
Human reproductive biology is not a construction. You don't call the sunset a "construction," you construct the word "sunset" to mark the phenomenon. The world is made of stuff, not words. We are made of blood and meat and bone, not words. Nature does not give a damn what words we use to mark or describe its properties. Male and female bodies are the result of human evolution as a sexually dimorphic species. No amount of "construction" is ever going to make male bodies in female sports fair, ever.
You will have to choose one or the other. The lines are drawn. You are standing in no man's land -- "neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."
Sorry but I'm impatient waiting for part 2!
Good start to the discussion, Roger.
A major concern of mine is that transgender (male to female) athletes have the advantage of years of elevated male hormones that have built bone and muscle mass. Should they be able to compete with those who have not have this advantage? How would we regard a female who had taken testosterone in her formative years, but was now drug free?
Hi Aynsley! This is a legitimate concern and one I'll discuss in part 2...
Cheers Roger. It's an important issue. Sport really requires contestants to be competing roughly on an equal basis to be meaningful, Some (eg boxing) have weight divisions to ensure this.
A really interesting point, I'd love some perspective on what we could possibly categorise as 'equal' or 'fair' in this sense. I think it's now unarguable there is some level of residual advantage post-transition (for trans women) but is this worse than any other advantage that many elite athletes enjoy? For example, Sharron Davies is a vocal critic in this area yet she is significantly taller than the average female, attended a public school with a professional swimming set up and therefore received arguably elite coaching from the age of 8 (some of which she attributes to her success). This is no slight on her achievements or character, just an observation that those advantages which appear fundamental to her success are fine whilst others are not.
We've seen it recently with Nike's 'Air Zoom Victory' causing records to tumble in athletics, it will be interesting to see if they provoke the same level of public interest/ outrage!
Looking forward to Part 2!