• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guy Win's Women's Tour de Tucson

X Factor said:
If the folks bothered by it put on their own event barring transsexual participants would you support that?
Click to expand...

Sure. I'd expect if they were outspoken about it they'd draw protesters, but that's between them and the protesters.

These are private events. They set their own rules. It's really that simple.

Being able to do what you want in a private venue is the central to a free society, just as much as voicing your objections to the same.

Once I got past the ick factor on trans folk and accepted that it matters to them whatever I think about it, it became much easier for me to rationalize.

Honestly, there are so few trans ppl that it seems absurd to spend much energy on the subject.

I'm thankful I don't struggle with those issues, because it seems to suck for a lot of them.
 
Renae said:
I won't disagree there is an inherent difference
Click to expand...

That's my primary issue with this--the inherent differences: usually size, weight and strength.
 
Henrin said:
The issues dealing with MTF's in competition and FTM's in competition are different, so it shouldn't be shocking to you that the variables behind it are different. Also, it's not selective in the slightest since sports organizations commonly consider taking testosterone and estrogen blockers as cheating no matter if it is male competition or female competition involved. Since MTF's aren't taking the drugs in question there is clearly no grounds for my argument to apply to them, but since FTM's are in fact taking such drugs my argument applies to them.
Click to expand...

Then you are shadow boxing, in the context of this thread; thanks for the clarification.
 
WillyPete said:
Sure. I'd expect if they were outspoken about it they'd draw protesters, but that's between them and the protesters.

These are private events. They set their own rules. It's really that simple.

Being able to do what you want in a private venue is the central to a free society, just as much as voicing your objections to the same.

Once I got past the ick factor on trans folk and accepted that it matters to them whatever I think about it, it became much easier for me to rationalize.

Honestly, there are so few trans ppl that it seems absurd to spend much energy on the subject.

I'm thankful I don't struggle with those issues, because it seems to suck for a lot of them.
Click to expand...

There is over a million in the US alone, you know. A million out of 300 million is actually quite a lot, really. Also consider that the number is still growing as more and more people are being diagnosed and "treated" for it.
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
I won't disagree there is an inherent difference
Click to expand...

Just like there is an inherent difference between athletes that have physical characteristics that give them a natural edge. No one appears to be complaining that we should change cycling so that there are separate body mass, metabolism etc categories? Sport, and particularly professional sport, is an arbitrary pursuit all of which is moot anyway because the whole point of the thread is to take a headline and beat up on transsexuals.

I recently went to a cycling event where a respected clean pro cyclist was speaking and he described his career and pending retirement in the context that, he could train as hard and as long as he liked but, his natural physique was never going to allow him to break out of the peloton. He is an enormously gifted cyclist and, it is so unfair that he never won many races but, that's how it rolled for him, he didn't whinge and moan about inherent differences but, as I said, actual concern for women or sport is hardly the point of this thread, is it?
 
X Factor said:
If the folks bothered by it put on their own event barring transsexual partipants would you support that?
Click to expand...

If they decide to do that as far as I am concerned that should be their right but, it should not be their right to avoid the potential consequences of that, including those from governing bodies.
 
calamity said:
That's my primary issue with this--the inherent differences: usually size, weight and strength.
Click to expand...

Yup, and there are inherent differences everywhere, why do you focus on transsexuals so much in this context?
 
William Rea said:
Just like there is an inherent difference between athletes that have physical characteristics that give them a natural edge. No one appears to be complaining that we should change cycling so that there are separate body mass, metabolism etc categories? Sport, and particularly professional sport, is an arbitrary pursuit all of which is moot anyway because the whole point of the thread is to take a headline and beat up on transsexuals.

I recently went to a cycling event where a respected clean pro cyclist was speaking and he described his career and pending retirement in the context that, he could train as hard and as long as he liked but, his natural physique was never going to allow him to break out of the peloton. He is an enormously gifted cyclist and, it is so unfair that he never won many races but, that's how it rolled for him, he didn't whinge and moan about inherent differences but, as I said, actual concern for women or sport is hardly the point of this thread, is it?
Click to expand...

The sport in question is a woman's sport, so the fact that the advantages come about because the individual is actually male is kind of a big deal.
 
Josie said:
Women should be pissed about this.
Click to expand...

Seriously, if it's that big a deal why are women not getting the governing bodies of their sports to change the rules? Sport is arbitrary, it can be changed, there is nothing that says that rules cannot be amended if you decide to compete under the auspices of any sports governing body.

Are they waiting for a man to come along and do the job for them?
 
William Rea said:
Seriously, if it's that big a deal why are women not getting the governing bodies of their sports to change the rules? Sport is arbitrary, it can be changed, there is nothing that says that rules cannot be amended if you decide to compete under the auspices of any sports governing body.

Are they waiting for a man to come along and do the job for them?
Click to expand...

Women have complained about it, you know. For example, several women in the MMA complained about the MTF competitor, but they were pretty much ignored or called bigots for it.
 
William Rea said:
Yup, and there are inherent differences everywhere, why do you focus on transsexuals so much in this context?
Click to expand...

Because MTF's have inherit advantages due to not even being female in the first ****ing place. How is that hard to get?
 
TheGoverness said:
Faux outrage? :shrug:
Click to expand...

My outrage may often times be misplaced or out of proportion but it is always real. That said, I don't feel outrage about this at all.
 
Henrin said:
The sport in question is a woman's sport, so the fact that the advantages come about because the individual is actually male is kind of a big deal.
Click to expand...

Cycling, for example, is not a women's or men's sport, it is a category in a sport that has been defined to exclude in order to make the particular sport reasonably viable for competitors. It is an arbitrary category for the convenience of competition, nothing more than that. As I have already shown at least twice, if there is real concern about equality of opportunity for the sports snowflakes then we should be putting more categories into sport to address those inherent differences, that we do not should explain why this issue is manufactured.

This is not the first time that I have found it strange that a 'rabid hard left socialist' like myself is the one making the classic liberal/libertarian stance in a thread on sexuality where self identifying moderates/libertarians are leading the authoritarian/social conservative line.
 
Henrin said:
Women have complained about it, you know. For example, several women in the MMA complained about the MTF competitor, but they were pretty much ignored or called bigots for it.
Click to expand...

Have women complained about it? That has not been linked or posted up in this thread yet among all the 'mansplaining'.

If that is the case then the governing body needs to address it, and if they don't then I'm sure that the ladies can find a man to set up another governing body more suited to them.
 
Henrin said:
Because MTF's have inherit advantages due to not even being female in the first ****ing place. How is that hard to get?
Click to expand...

You appear to make the mistake of believing that I don't understand this. The problem isn't that I don't understand your argument Henrin, the problem is that your argument is bullcrap.
 
William Rea said:
Just like there is an inherent difference between athletes that have physical characteristics that give them a natural edge. No one appears to be complaining that we should change cycling so that there are separate body mass, metabolism etc categories? Sport, and particularly professional sport, is an arbitrary pursuit all of which is moot anyway because the whole point of the thread is to take a headline and beat up on transsexuals.

I recently went to a cycling event where a respected clean pro cyclist was speaking and he described his career and pending retirement in the context that, he could train as hard and as long as he liked but, his natural physique was never going to allow him to break out of the peloton. He is an enormously gifted cyclist and, it is so unfair that he never won many races but, that's how it rolled for him, he didn't whinge and moan about inherent differences but, as I said, actual concern for women or sport is hardly the point of this thread, is it?
Click to expand...

"Inherent" advantages are not the same as extrinsically induced advantages.
 
X Factor said:
"Inherent" advantages are not the same as extrinsically induced advantages.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about 'extrinsically induced advantages' if you mean drugs. It is a fact that even among categories of athletes within cycling for example that there are inherent natural differences in things like natural haematocrit and metabolsim rates that mean that for many it will never matter how much they train, they will never compete outside the peloton. Listen XF, I am not even convinced that it is right for transsexuals to compete in these categories but, I want that objection to be based upon something more than what I am seeing in here.
 
Henrin said:
There is over a million in the US alone, you know. A million out of 300 million is actually quite a lot, really. Also consider that the number is still growing as more and more people are being diagnosed and "treated" for it.
Click to expand...

0.003%

I suppose it depends on where the actual percentage ends up falling, but it seems to be an extremely small part of the overall population.

So we're clear, I'm all for trans folk doing whatever they want to feel comfortable with themselves.

I just don't see any big issue with them participating in sports as their preferred sex. Even if they were totally dominant in every single case, it would barely rate as a blimp in the statistics of any major sport. I'll bet you wouldn't need both hands to count the number of trans riders that compete in that level of bicycling, or will in the next decade.
 
WillyPete said:
0.003%

I suppose it depends on where the actual percentage ends up falling, but it seems to be an extremely small part of the overall population.

So we're clear, I'm all for trans folk doing whatever they want to feel comfortable with themselves.

I just don't see any big issue with them participating in sports as their preferred sex. Even if they were totally dominant in every single case, it would barely rate as a blimp in the statistics of any major sport. I'll bet you wouldn't need both hands to count the number of trans riders that compete in that level of bicycling, or will in the next decade.
Click to expand...

A million people is a **** ton of people. As for the rest of your post, well, I disagree. It doesn't matter how many compete or how many don't compete as the fact remains that not only are they not the sex the sport is actually for, but that they are on drugs that give them advantages over their competition(FTM) or have advantages over their completion due to their actual sex(females actually are better equipped for certain things involved in some sports believe it or not).
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
Cycling, for example, is not a women's or men's sport, it is a category in a sport that has been defined to exclude in order to make the particular sport reasonably viable for competitors. It is an arbitrary category for the convenience of competition, nothing more than that. As I have already shown at least twice, if there is real concern about equality of opportunity for the sports snowflakes then we should be putting more categories into sport to address those inherent differences, that we do not should explain why this issue is manufactured.

This is not the first time that I have found it strange that a 'rabid hard left socialist' like myself is the one making the classic liberal/libertarian stance in a thread on sexuality where self identifying moderates/libertarians are leading the authoritarian/social conservative line.
Click to expand...

Sigh. The fact is the sports are separated by the sex of the individuals with the goal to push forward the best of their sexes. When a man starts to compete in the league for women or a woman start to compete in the league for men it undermines the whole point of the thing and introduces elements into the equation that the system was trying to avoid.
 
X Factor said:
My outrage may often times be misplaced or out of proportion but it is always real. That said, I don't feel outrage about this at all.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time really giving a **** about this, tbh.
 
William Rea said:
Yup, and there are inherent differences everywhere, why do you focus on transsexuals so much in this context?
Click to expand...

It's less about "transsexuals" than it is men having huge advantages over women in physical sport. In general, women cannot compete with men effectively. That's why male world records are, with very rare exception, always beyond the reach of women.
 
TheGoverness said:
I have a hard time really giving a **** about this, tbh.
Click to expand...

You would if you were trying to win a bicycle race and some dude blew by you to win the trophy you trained all year to get.
 
Henrin said:
A million people is a **** ton of people. As for the rest of your post, well, I disagree. It doesn't matter how many compete or how many don't compete as the fact remains that not only are they not the sex the sport is actually for, but that they are on drugs that give them advantages over their competition(FTM) or have advantages over their completion due to their actual sex(females actually are better equipped for certain things involved in some sports believe it or not).
Click to expand...

1 million among 300 million is not, especially since they aren't going to be uniform in thought or action.

My original position here stands. It's up to the governing body of the event\sport to decide what's fair play.

If sponsors, participants, or spectators don't like the rules they set, they can appeal to them or withdraw their support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom