Rikkitic:

 

People are different. Some are bigger than others. Some have longer arms. Some have more determination. If you start trying to even out all the differences, where do you stop? What is the point of competition at all? I doubt the real issue is about transgender athletes. It probably has more to do with atavistic attitudes towards transgender people.

 

That is YOUR prejudice speaking. Almost all the comments here are FOR inclusion, and my comments have been very measured and in favour of inclusion. My entire problem is with fairness. You don't seem to grasp the fairness concept. 

There is no significant advantage to a taller tennis player unless the opposition is a dwarf. I play squash and tall players have more trouble with low hard returns than I would typically, just as it gives the taller player a height or width advantage. 

I play against kids all the time. They lack the power or ability to return a lob as well as I might, but they can stretch, they are faster, and they never run out of energy.

There is a HUGE difference between what you are talking about, and what the rest of us are I think.

MikeB4: the presence of controversy does not eliminate fact.

If the controversy is social in nature i.e. facts established but people don't like them, then I agree with you.

The IOC has rules and Hubbard has been deemed to comply with them.  Those are facts.

Whether the rules are fair is a whole different matter.  To start with fairness is an arbitrary social construct.  No facts there.

When talking about something as biologically complex as performance in weightlifting +/- inherent sex differences, +/- gender re-assignment ... I would argue there are very few facts.  Just a bunch of arbitrary distinctions.

As a 'woman' Hubbard has lifted to within 4kg of the record he (then) set as a male competitor.

Rikkitic:

 

My sympathies to her. 

 

Back to the issue of fairness, how fair is it to allow a 60 kg female to compete against one weighing 80 kg in any sport,

 

There are so many sports where weight is of little importance. Put Lydia Ko next to Ariya Jutanugarn. 

But sports where weight matters, such as *weightlifting*, separate the competition into weight grades. It's kind of obvious isn't it.

 

or a tall tennis player against a short one, or a long-legged sprinter, etc. etc. Sure, fighters are weighed but this does not extend to all sports. 

 

Tennis player John Isner is 2.08m tall but he can't beat any of the top 10 who are all shorter. Some sports will never suit some people. Nobody's trying to make them.

 

People are different. Some are bigger than others. Some have longer arms. Some have more determination. If you start trying to even out all the differences, where do you stop? What is the point of competition at all? I doubt the real issue is about transgender athletes. 

 

Did someone mention trying to even out all the differences? I must of missed that but should have noticed if someone said such a patently ridiculous thing.

You stop where we have always stopped. Where gender is imbalanced, e.g. weightlifting, you separate the sports. If they are not imbalanced, e.g. equestrian, you don't. 

If you think transgender women can compete fairly against other women then how about we just have men and women in the same weightlifting completion then? Otherwise where do we stop?

 

It probably has more to do with atavistic attitudes towards transgender people.

 

Ah, just attack those that don't share your views then, eh? They must all just dislike those people and that's why they don't think they should compete. Nice work.

MikeAqua:

 

As a 'woman' Hubbard has lifted to within 4kg of the record he (then) set as a male competitor.

 

Wow. And he competed in 105kg as a man and 90kg as a women, making it all the more stark a comparison. Before her nasty injury, Hubbard was lifting around 7kg more than the other women - that's leading towards a crushingly dominant performance from a formerly average male competitor.

But what would you expect?

networkn:

 

There is a HUGE difference between what you are talking about, and what the rest of us are I think.

 

Ease up. I wasn't going after you. I just tacked that part of my comment onto my response about the injury being career-ending.

Most replies here have been affirmative. I was targeting a few of the other ones, as well as questioning how big a difference, in terms of fairness, that being transgender actually makes. If it makes a difference at all, which the relevant officials don't seem to think it does, then I would imagine that some sports might be affected more than others.

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

There is a HUGE difference between what you are talking about, and what the rest of us are I think.

 

 

Ease up. I wasn't going after you. I just tacked that part of my comment onto my response about the injury being career-ending.

 

Most replies here have been affirmative. I was targeting a few of the other ones, as well as questioning how big a difference, in terms of fairness, that being transgender actually makes. If it makes a difference at all, which the relevant officials don't seem to think it does, then I would imagine that some sports might be affected more than others.

 

 

 

I think you two need to just agree to disagree on just about everything, chill and slide on the ice.

MikeB4:

 

I think you two need to just agree to disagree on just about everything, chill and slide on the ice.

 

Actually we agree on more than we disagree on but the disagreements are more fun.

Sliding on ice is more fun. 

Unless you're driving a car. Then it might not be fun for long.

Just announced on TV that the injury is career ending so that's the end of this chapter of controversy.

Would have been interesting to see what would have transpired with Tokyo in a couple of years, but for mine I'm pleased that we won't have any questionable medals on the NZ tally.

wratterus:

 

I think that is total BS that 'she' is allowed to compete. It's completely unfair for the real sportswomen and makes the whole thing a bit of a joke. PC gone mad. 

 

Why the apostrophes around she?

The most encouraging thing I got from reading this thread is that it took four pages and multitudes of posts before encountering the first and only person to 'qualify' Laurel's gender.

dafman:

 

wratterus:

 

I think that is total BS that 'she' is allowed to compete. It's completely unfair for the real sportswomen and makes the whole thing a bit of a joke. PC gone mad. 

 

 

Why the apostrophes around she?

 

The most encouraging thing I got from reading this thread is that it took four pages and multitudes of posts before encountering the first and only person to 'qualify' Laurel's gender.

 

You assume they are talking about gender. I read it that they are not, hence the single quotation marks.

dafman:

 

The most encouraging thing I got from reading this thread is that it took four pages and multitudes of posts before encountering the first and only person to 'qualify' Laurel's gender.

 

We all have biological and social programming to recognise males and females based on physical appearance and behaviour.

I'll be honest.  I simply cannot get myself think of Laurel as a woman, based on limited observation of her appearance and mannerism on TV.  If I describe Laurel as 'her' it's a courtesy, not a genuine response.

By contrast  a colleague who has undergone full gender transition several years ago, I automatically think of female.

MikeAqua:

 

I'll be honest.  I simply cannot get myself think of Laurel as a woman, based on limited observation of her appearance and mannerism on TV.  If I describe Laurel as 'her' it's a courtesy, not a genuine response.

 

By contrast  a colleague who has undergone full gender transition several years ago, I automatically think of female.

 

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.

The easiest way to resolve this conflict is entry by DNA. If DNA male - go left, DNA female, go right. Biology cannot be changed AFAIK. Other things you can argue till the cows come home.

Maybe one poster is correct. Everybody competes in the same category. Then there will be no arguments.

"Prove"?

Why would his expectations need adjusting when they're correct 99% of the time?