Gender and Bathrooms and T&F

Wtfunny wrote:

So you're saying someone who uses the woman's showers shouldn't be allowed to compete with other women?

Yes.

It should be stricter to compete in the female category than to take a shower with other females. At least for adults. For underage women/non-binaries it would be wise to not enforce such rules to the same degree. There may even be a distinction between pros and amateurs.

The goal for different athletic categories is make as many women as possible think it's worthwhile to participate in sports at both amateur and elite levels.

The goal for different shower facilities is to protect victims from potential predators and to give as many people as possible the feeling of a "safe space" where they can do their private things.

There's not a one-on-one relationship between the two as you assume.

1. Sorry, no trannies in the women division. It's similar to doping/ cheating, is scientifically proven to not be equal/ the same at this point, probably won't be for 50+ years, if ever.

Remember the man who took some estrogen, then ragdolled women in MMA for years before "shim" was outed? Sorry, doesn't change your bone density, jaw alignment, muscle mass accumulated, and 100 other factors that actual medical doctors have tested. A man can take estrogen for 80 years and still have greater bone density than a woman, unfair advantage, end of story.

The intersex women with testes? Sorry, asterisk. Doesn't count. There is know major intersex/ tranny league, sadly, but maybe their should be. Because she's obviously has potential higher than pure women, but probably shittier than pure men.

Trans can 'fight up a league' with men, or do their own league, but you can't go down a league and ragdoll everyone.

2. Bathrooms? Sorry I don't want to change my "game" around and be concerned about taking a hot steaming load next to the hot blonde with the huge knockers. It's a biological fact that people feel vulnerable and are nervous when sh!tting. Clearly. Even dogs fear it. It's a perfect time to be attacked by predators (in the animal kingdom).

If you think you're a 'special snowflake' then use the 3rd bathroom called "whatever sex/ special snowflake.' The other two stalls are as is. If there is no third stall? Whelp, you better hope you can pass. If you look like a gorilla with a mop on your head, consider using the men's room. In fact, the men's room should be fair game for everyone. No-one cares about the weirdos in there, more like they are afraid some Pervert (not even a trans) will call himself Claire and stroll into the women's showers to see some boobies.

gbsdgb wrote:

Wtfunny wrote:

So you're saying someone who uses the woman's showers shouldn't be allowed to compete with other women?

And this "not allowed" denlineation should be decided by who, and on what grounds? How about a woman who's 6'2" and her unfair advantage? That's largely chemistry, no.

Not when she's competing against other 6'2" WOMEN.

The point, as you don't seem to understand, is that genetic advantage comes in so any ways. Why mitigate one and nnot the other?

Wtfunny wrote:

Why mitigate one and nnot the other?

Because the female genetic class is by far the biggest and easiest to single out. In other sports they have weight classes. Do you want that in athletics too?

As always in these threads, the conservatives lay out logically consistent rules (although not perfect, since the world is not perfect) while the leftists refuse to stand behind the flawed system they have forced through.

So why don't you now cut the crap, libtard, and present your views.

I know the OP, he's a bitch wrote:

Wtfunny wrote:

Why mitigate one and nnot the other?

Because the female genetic class is by far the biggest and easiest to single out. In other sports they have weight classes. Do you want that in athletics too?

As always in these threads, the conservatives lay out logically consistent rules (although not perfect, since the world is not perfect) while the leftists refuse to stand behind the flawed system they have forced through.

So why don't you now cut the crap, libtard, and present your views.

Clearly it's not easy to single out. Semenya's case heaps been ongoing for years, and apparently still isn't resolved.

I think Semenya's case for competing as a woman is every bit as strong or stronger than the argument she should not. Saying she should use the woman's locker room seems to me to be advocacy of that as well. She's certainly at a very big disadvantage competing against men, no?

The questions are only going to become more complicated, not less, as technologies change. I don't pretend it's simple. I see the discussion as a reasonable example of how difficult some of these things are, even with a well-intentioned approach ... Something you clearly don't understand.

Blah Blah Blah. wrote:

Nothing needs to be done. No laws need to be written.

There never was any problem until liberals created one.

Yet conservatives are the ones writing the laws...

If my daughter went into a restroom with a transgender in it I would not worry about her safety.

On the other hand I would not let my son be an alter boy because I would really worry about his safety.

I can not remember reading about any person being sexually assaulted by transgender person.

How many times have we read about youth being sexually assaulted by the clergymen.

I don't hear any protest about the religious molesters being allowed in bathrooms with young boys.

The issue isn't someone that is actually transgender. The issue is someone that just says they are transgender.

Wtfunny wrote:

You didn't answer the question.

Should Caster and her vagina of birth get changed in the women's locker room, then walk out on the track and compete against men?

I answered the better question as is often my habit, with the basic principle that answers your question, that the basic issue in both cases is protection of the "weaker sex."

Which locker room Semenya gets to use depends on whether the Y-chromosomeless population decides they find her threatening or not.

As for competing against women (and it will eventually be necessary to legally define that as Y-chromosomeless) it is not fair, and I doubt any of Semenya's opponents think it is. That doesn't mean it's fair for her to have to compete against men either, but that's nobody's fault. It's just one of those problems with no solution. Can't win 'em all.

Bad Wigins wrote:

I answered the better question as is often my habit, with the basic principle that answers your question, that the basic issue in both cases is protection of the "weaker sex."

Which locker room Semenya gets to use depends on whether the Y-chromosomeless population decides they find her threatening or not.

As for competing against women (and it will eventually be necessary to legally define that as Y-chromosomeless) it is not fair, and I doubt any of Semenya's opponents think it is. That doesn't mean it's fair for her to have to compete against men either, but that's nobody's fault. It's just one of those problems with no solution. Can't win 'em all.

I agree it's a problem where any solution is, essentially, completely arbitrary. So we should at least be consistent. IMO, if Semenya is female enough to use the women's bathrooms/locker rooms, she's female enough to compete against women. Is she dominant? Sure. No more so than Bolt 08/09, etc .. there have long been athletes who were simply of a different class than their competitors.

Great post.

Everyone needs to stop pretending they are some medical sex expert and stating that X equals female and Y equals male. Do some research and you will see it is not.

The IAAF and IOC are not being 'stupid libs' and letting 'men' compete with women because of some political correctness designed to upset conservatives. The current situation is due to the fact that biological sex is very complicated and drawing a clear line between male and female is very difficult. There is no single determinant. That is a medical fact.

There have been female athletes with Y chromosomes in their genetic makeup that have gone on to bear children.

I don't know how far some of you 'conservatives' will go but a woman that bears children is a woman in my eyes despite her chromosomal markers.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The basic point of separate bathrooms is the protection of those without Y chromosomes from those with Y chromosomes.

Problems:

1. We mostly need to protect kids from adults. Not women from men.

2. Why would a rapist care if he has to break the rule about which bathroom he's allowed to use?

Wtfunny wrote:

I realize the intersection of such things is difficult to navigate. The question is shouldn't we be consistent, or be able to honestly and logically support a position?

To my mind, Caster presents a example of those intersections. Rojo just essentially said he thinks she should shower and change with women, yet compete with men. I think that's inconsistent. I also think his argument opened up his dishonesty when he referred to "compete in the open events". There's no "open 800m", there are men's and women's 800m. Rojo knows that. It's simply a way of reframing the discussion to make an inconsistent position appear consistent.

There basically is an open event. It's called men's sports. When sports started, there was just one event - men. Women's sports was created to help a whole class of people be competitive becuase of genetic disadvantages they have. Caster, with internal testicles, doesn't have those disadvantages.

Hence she shoudn't be in the 'women's category.'

And people think it's weird she dressed in one locker room but competes in another. No it is not. If the liberals have their way, we'll all be dressing in the same locker room. What people dont want to admit is a biological fact. There are differences between men and women, that become pronounced after puberty. Normally that is made obvious with a penis and vagina. In Semenya's case, it's not obvious as she apparently has a vagina but with testicles.

Genetically, from a sports standpoint, she's more male than female. Culturally, she's more female.

When kids are litte, they play co-ed soccer. My friends 6 year old son plays on a team where the best player by far is a girl. Unfortunately, because she doesnt' ahve testicles, she won't be the best player in 10 years.

Metric Miler wrote:

Great post.

Everyone needs to stop pretending they are some medical sex expert and stating that X equals female and Y equals male. Do some research and you will see it is not.

The IAAF and IOC are not being 'stupid libs' and letting 'men' compete with women because of some political correctness designed to upset conservatives. The current situation is due to the fact that biological sex is very complicated and drawing a clear line between male and female is very difficult. There is no single determinant. That is a medical fact.

There have been female athletes with Y chromosomes in their genetic makeup that have gone on to bear children.

I don't know how far some of you 'conservatives' will go but a woman that bears children is a woman in my eyes despite her chromosomal markers.

I'm a bit dubious in regards to your claim that there have been female athletes with y chromsomes that have given birth. From what I understand, that is extremely rare. Most xy females are born without a uterus or ovaries. In very rare cases, the person may have a uterus, but needs an egg donor.

There was a rare case of a 46,XY woman in Croatia who gave birth.

If you would care to share your source on the multiple XY female athletes who have given birth, would love to see it.

oldold runner wrote:

If my daughter went into a restroom with a transgender in it I would not worry about her safety.

On the other hand I would not let my son be an alter boy because I would really worry about his safety.

I can not remember reading about any person being sexually assaulted by transgender person.

How many times have we read about youth being sexually assaulted by the clergymen.

I don't hear any protest about the religious molesters being allowed in bathrooms with young boys.

Would you not let your son have any teacher or coach outside the home? Because there are many more instances of teachers or coaches sexually assaulting young people than clergymen. Should we therefore assume that all teachers or coaches will sexually assault young people if given the opportunity?

I didn't say 46,XY. I said females with a Y chromosome have given birth. Genetic makeups are complex and don't always prescribe to XX and XY.

Female athlete with Y chromosome that has given birth naturally:

Å‚obukowska

There have been many females with Y chromosomes that have given birth either naturally or with medical aid such as IVF. You can research this for yourself. Do not get me wrong, it is rare, but these conditions themselves are rare and often women in the general population would not even know they had any gender abnormalities unless tested for some reason (such as IOC gender testing).

Chromosomal testing has got to be one of the least reliable methods of determining who an athlete should compete with. A persons body (and therefore athletic advantage) doesn't necessarily always line up with their chromosomes.

In other words, my point was that having a Y chromosome does not automatically make you male as so many posters here seem to think. It is a deliberately over-simplistic response to a complex issue.

Many posters here like to do this because it allows them to pretend there is a PC agenda which they enjoy complaining about.

Keep moving the little sucker wrote:If you would care to share your source on the multiple XY female athletes who have given birth, would love to see it.

For purposes of this discussion, I don't think it matters whether they are fertile.

The point is that dividing people based on XY and XX chromosomes is not workable because there are individuals with XY chromosomes who may appear to be female without genetic or some other close medical examination.

If you criminalize people with XY chromosomes using a women's restroom or locker room, you making criminals of people who may not even be aware that they have XY chromosomes. You are also forcing people with XY chromosomes who appear, to all practical intents and purposes, to be biological women to use men's restrooms or locker rooms.

Getting the government involved, and criminalizing behavior based on XY or XX chromosomes is using too blunt an instrument to deal with the many variations in human biology.

Rojo, you are talking about retrofitting 100 million bathrooms in this country.

The best I can tell, for some people, there is no intersex condition that would prohibit a person from competing as a woman. So what we have is the men's division and the open division.