Because he is making a point about the 1%.

This is a thread about the 1%

Rikkitic:

 

I have seen plenty of CIS-women who look a lot more masculine than she does. Check out an LA lesbian biker gang sometime. It is a sliding scale. Even without clothes or attributes, some females look so feminine you would never question it, though a few might surprise you. At the other end are biological women who could floor you with a single punch. Most are comfortably in the middle so they don't challenge your assumptions, but saying that Laurel doesn't look enough like a woman to satisfy your expectations doesn't prove anything, except that your expectations need adjusting.

 

I didn't once mention any expectations on my part.  I have no expectations applicable to her.  I have simply outlined my  reactions - which evidently don't align with the expectations you feel entitled to impose on others.

I also think you confuse assumptions with innate biological responses.

Even the most masculine women I have met/seen were still obviously female to me no matter how hard they try not to be feminine.  Perhaps there are pheromones or body language or some sub-concious cue like that at work. 

It's my observation is that women are all obviously female, while trans-women have to work very hard to seem female at all.

You may not like that but it's what I see.  You obviously see the world differently.  That doesn't bother me at all.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how I see people, just how I treat them.

MikeAqua:

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter how I see people, just how I treat them.

 

THIS!

networkn:

 

MikeAqua:

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter how I see people, just how I treat them.

 

 

THIS!

 

 

 

Agree.

Rikkitic:

 

Agree.

 

So we agree that everyone should be treated fairly, including those competitors born one gender who remain that same gender? What we seem to disagree on, is the fact there is an advantage to those born male, who change to female, in sports where physical strength and build are fundamental factor?

Despite the all the logic to the contrary? 

Excluding the fact she hyperextended an elbow (I think it was commented as poor technique) she would have "easily" lifted that weight and taken gold, there was not anyone in the field who wasn't pretty much tapped out at their limits at that point. 

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Agree.

 

 

So we agree that everyone should be treated fairly, including those competitors born one gender who remain that same gender? What we seem to disagree on, is the fact there is an advantage to those born male, who change to female, in sports where physical strength and build are fundamental factor?

 

Despite the all the logic to the contrary? 

 

Excluding the fact she hyperextended an elbow (I think it was commented as poor technique) she would have "easily" lifted that weight and taken gold, there was not anyone in the field who wasn't pretty much tapped out at their limits at that point. 

 

Yep. I've referenced above in this thread an expert opinion that transgender females have an unfair advantage (in strength/power type events). When expert opinion meets common sense that's the end of the story for me.

I think the various sporting authorities are finding this too hard so they're kicking it down the road. Eventually this will hit the big time when a transgender female wins an Olympic gold and turns the event into a farce. It could have been Laurel but that's now been avoided. Laurel's dream is shattered and that's sad for her. I would have thought the unwanted attention and negativity would be worse.

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Agree.

 

 

So we agree that everyone should be treated fairly, including those competitors born one gender who remain that same gender? What we seem to disagree on, is the fact there is an advantage to those born male, who change to female, in sports where physical strength and build are fundamental factor?

 

Despite the all the logic to the contrary? 

 

Excluding the fact she hyperextended an elbow (I think it was commented as poor technique) she would have "easily" lifted that weight and taken gold, there was not anyone in the field who wasn't pretty much tapped out at their limits at that point. 

 

Always trying to squeeze out that extra win, are you? What I agree with, 100+%, is the statement that was made: 'Ultimately it doesn't matter how I see people, just how I treat them.'

Don't try to make it more than it is. As it stands it is an excellent sentiment and I am content to leave it there.

Good. I don't have anything to add... I just wanted to be the last one to comment on this thread  *<:-P

It's a very difficult problem.  I'm glad I'm not responsible for making the rules.

Someone who has transitioned from male to female seems to be at a dis-advantage compared to males yet may have an advantage over females. Focussing on plasma testosterone (as regulator of musculature) is a very simplistic approach.

Trans-women are a small population group. If they consistently achieve to a high level when competing with women (a large population group), the simplest conclusion is to infer some sort of biological advantage. 

Why do we have separate men's and women's sports?  It's about inclusion. For example the men's 100m Olympic qualifying standard was 10.16s, while the women's WR is 10.49s.  There is no contest between men and women.

While the IOC are emphasising inclusion and that is laudable, they may have inadvertently substituted one form of unfairness for another.  As the population of trans-women athletes increases it will become more clear.

Rikkitic:

 

Always trying to squeeze out that extra win, are you? What I agree with, 100+%, is the statement that was made: 'Ultimately it doesn't matter how I see people, just how I treat them.'

 

Don't try to make it more than it is. As it stands it is an excellent sentiment and I am content to leave it there.

 

People are being treated unfairly, that is the point of the thread. 

So it's ok to treat people unfairly if they aren't a minority.

networkn:

 

People are being treated unfairly, that is the point of the thread. 

 

Some people think other people are being treated unfairly. Not everyone agrees. That is the point of this thread.

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

People are being treated unfairly, that is the point of the thread. 

 

 

Some people think other people are being treated unfairly. Not everyone agrees. That is the point of this thread.

 

 

 

No, the facts speak to the fact (See prior provided evidence) they ARE being disadvantaged, and some people THINK it's not the case.

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

People are being treated unfairly, that is the point of the thread. 

 

 

Some people think other people are being treated unfairly. Not everyone agrees. That is the point of this thread.

 

 

 

 

No, the facts speak to the fact (See prior provided evidence) they ARE being disadvantaged, and some people THINK it's not the case.

 

Does anybody really believe, in the face of all the evidence, that Laurel didn't have an unfair advantage over the other women? 

In the current social climate, I don't think any organisation (in this case the IOC) is willing to question the rabid liberal minority as they don't want to risk the onslaught of protest from said minority. 

I have spoken with many people in my fairly diverse social circle about this and not one person has agreed that this is a fair situation for the other competitors. As stated in the linked article in this thread, the IOC rushed this decision without the proper scientific evidence being conducted to base that decision on.

I agree with others here that if this issue got to the Olympics, there would have been a huge amount of protest and controversy from the other competitors but until that eventuates, the IOC can look like they are being inclusive by allowing transgender participation.