03-25-2017, 09:07 PM
Alright then guys, convince me. Because I agree with Ashock on this, and I'm a "dirty liberal."
Sport is one of those areas where people have agreed that it's necessary to separate leagues by gender, because of certain biological facts. Especially in competitions involving strength, females have significantly lower testosterone from birth and this is a key element to the building of male musculature. It is why "weak" men can physically dominate "strong" women, and why world records in a number of competitive sports are not close between the genders. For instance, a woman has never run a 4-minute mile, and female weightlifting records are for smaller weights then men.
So, given these biological differences, when someone born male has reassignment surgery later in life to become a woman, that person will possess significant advantages over the women she is competing against. While I'm all for gender equality and the right for people to identify as the gender they wish, the very reason women's leagues exist is because of the unfair physical advantage men have over women. So, when a man who switched to a woman now competes with people who still have half the testosterone than the reassigned competitor, it's unfair to those who were naturally born female. This is Ashock's point.
The slippery-slope "well, that's crazy" argument here is that if rules are not put in place regarding this, eventually countries like China and Russia will arrive to the Olympics with whole squads of gender-reassigned women in order to scoop up gold medals.
How do you propose keeping competition in women's leagues fair when gender-reassigned competitors possess twice as much testosterone along with male skeletal structures? If you were born female, wouldn't that really piss you off? As a woman who may have spent her entire life practicing and training to be the best only to get beaten by someone born a man?
Sport is one of those areas where people have agreed that it's necessary to separate leagues by gender, because of certain biological facts. Especially in competitions involving strength, females have significantly lower testosterone from birth and this is a key element to the building of male musculature. It is why "weak" men can physically dominate "strong" women, and why world records in a number of competitive sports are not close between the genders. For instance, a woman has never run a 4-minute mile, and female weightlifting records are for smaller weights then men.
So, given these biological differences, when someone born male has reassignment surgery later in life to become a woman, that person will possess significant advantages over the women she is competing against. While I'm all for gender equality and the right for people to identify as the gender they wish, the very reason women's leagues exist is because of the unfair physical advantage men have over women. So, when a man who switched to a woman now competes with people who still have half the testosterone than the reassigned competitor, it's unfair to those who were naturally born female. This is Ashock's point.
The slippery-slope "well, that's crazy" argument here is that if rules are not put in place regarding this, eventually countries like China and Russia will arrive to the Olympics with whole squads of gender-reassigned women in order to scoop up gold medals.
How do you propose keeping competition in women's leagues fair when gender-reassigned competitors possess twice as much testosterone along with male skeletal structures? If you were born female, wouldn't that really piss you off? As a woman who may have spent her entire life practicing and training to be the best only to get beaten by someone born a man?
Quote:Considering the mods here are generally liberals who seem to have a soft spot for fascism and white supremacy (despite them saying otherwise), me being perma-banned at some point is probably not out of the question.