Female athletes crushed by 'women who were once men'

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: hutch622

I think the point of the article was even if an outtie is turned into an innie, the bones and muscles remain the same.

Erm, I'm a 5'8 male...

My bones are not that large in comparison to many women...



You bring no scientific fact to these discussions.

But yet science says you are wrong.

In terms of brute strength men are 50% above women.

I'm sorry that you are not statistically a normal male.

That doesn't change science though.

Real Science Stuff

More Science stuff

I gotta admit I agree with this. I work a physical job with a lot of lifting. I'm not the biggest guy, I'm also 5'8", I work with a with a girl about my size she out weighs me a bit and she's strong and has no problem lifting what we need to but I tend to be able to out lift her both in terms of weight and being able to keep the weight up. I also find I'm more willing to push myself to do things I know I'm going to struggle with. I don't know this is just my very small observation based on personal experience.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
hormones are temporary. bone/muscle/mass takes years to develop.

if thirty-year-old male 'Griff' decides to become 'Griffene' he/she/it can do hormones or whatever for a few years but that won't undo the thirty years of bone/muscle/mass already there.

wouldn't be fair for a twenty-year old to play football in junior high would it?

that's why we have so few co-ed sports.

Muscle loss can occur rapidly so thats not the case. and switching to hormones of a different SEX(not gender) can and will effect your muscle mass. I got first hand experience here on that one. Had to take female hormones a while when i was younger. stupid doctor didnt know i already had hormone imbalance to begin with. 12 yrs of muscle mass just went soft and weaker than i used to be in about a year.
It also depends on your activity level,and exercise regimen. So the IOC should add a stipulation of no training to gain muscle for a year.

a reply to: ketsuko


Doping is doping right? If anyone of any sex has to take drugs to compete, they should be disqualified. In this case, the one participant has to take a drug therapy to maintain status as a girl. Fine. You're out. NEXT!

Getting so tired of this crazy BS is a world gone mad.

This just shows the unfortunate truth that trans folk will face a rough life.

But the fact remains that a trans women is equally welcome in female sports as she is in discussions about menstrual cycles.

Sure it sucks, and it's not fair etc. etc.

Take it up with god.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I don't know about this particular case, but to compare it to doping is pretty rough. I blame the sport. I'm trans and compete in Karate, and there are women that I've lost to and men that I've lost to, but this didn't stop me from winning an intramural against both.

Also, just to let you know, there are many women that have high levels of Testosterone, and Estrogen replacements aren't as critical as blockers once you're at a higher level. "Maintaining" status as a female is the relationship of these hormones balance, not the total amount. Male or female, I can promise you there are people with more Testosterone and Estrogen than you, that you wouldn't be aware of, simply because of how much ratio the counter hormone has. Unless we're going to measure and disqualify people with naturally high levels of hormones, this doesn't seem fair in the ways an adjusted therapy plan would work out unless it's to similar measured levels. Do you feel me? Feel free to disqualify her, but anyone with identical levels needs to be 'out'.

a reply to: MacK80


It's artificially maintaining their status.


Actually, no it's not, they are still male.

I realize that the community doesn't want to have this argument though.

a reply to: kosmicjack

You can play victim card with me, I don't care, as a trans I'll be the first to tell you muscle development growth with hormones during puberty means more than the levels you strawman in the first place.

Your argument is she needs to be out because her testosterone is too high. I said I'm fine with that, but you need to understand there are NATURAL FEMALES with the exact same levels that should be barred then too. Using your absurd 'doping' logic.

So which is it? My sound argument, or the madness?

a reply to: MacK80

Is bone structure now irrelevant?

This isn't just a chemical thing.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

True, leverage is everything.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

That's what I just ####ing said, levels don't mean anything, use a better argument than levels.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

That's what I just ####ing said, levels don't mean anything, use a better argument than levels.

You mean like bone structure?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Or my muscle growth analogy before you existed and mocked me for lacking one?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: hutch622

I think the point of the article was even if an outtie is turned into an innie, the bones and muscles remain the same.

Erm, I'm a 5'8 male...

My bones are not that large in comparison to many women...





You bring no scientific fact to these discussions.

Heres some facts. If there was just one woman as good as say koby or mike or Lebron she would already be on an NBA team.

If just one woman could throw a football like Brady or run and catch like Antonio Brown she would already be in the NFL.

If just one woman could throw a baseball 100 MPH she would be pitching for the Yankess.


The point is if Women could help them win they would already be there. At this point they just are not good enough.

That is not sexist its truth.

a reply to: Shangralah

The fact they're not encoraged to compete is one reason no females break records.

My friend in highschool batted 1000 because females can't pitch, sure she's in ESPN magazine, but she only wanted to play with boys because to be blunt, she's much faster than you.

a reply to: MacK80

You mean that part about muscle growth being affected by hormones.

That's not exactly an argument against chemicals.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Shangralah

The fact they're not encoraged to compete is one reason no females break records.

My friend in highschool batted 1000 because females can't pitch, sure she's in ESPN magazine, but she only wanted to play with boys because to be blunt, she's much faster than you.

Not encourages to compete? What a crok... People who own and manage professional sports teams just want to win above all else.

If a woman could help them win they would be there. Your friend who batted 1000 could try out for any baseball team she wants.

And if she could bat 300 and hit 15 HRs she would be an all star.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Your DNA makes up your bone structure design, your entire body is biochemistry.

The argument was that the hormonal state they had when they were a child is more significant than the chemical state they are CURRENTLY in, because of the PHYSICAL repercussions that had.

If you're on T until you're 25, you can still remarkably balance hormones to female levels, but you will have male aspects.
If you're off T before you're 9, you will have female muscles.

That all aside, you're mostly ignorant because I was in agreement arguing against unfair competition by making this analogy, only to come at me like I'm defending it.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Shangralah

The fact they're not encoraged to compete is one reason no females break records.

My friend in highschool batted 1000 because females can't pitch, sure she's in ESPN magazine, but she only wanted to play with boys because to be blunt, she's much faster than you.

And your friend did not bat 1000 against boys for a whole season. Thats an outright lie lol. Or she would have been drafted right out of HS by the Yankees.

a reply to: MacK80


I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or even win an argument. I'm trying to inject some basic common sense and biology - it's about xx and xy.

You and anyone else are free to live your life to the fullest, however, the rest of the world should not be forced to revamp everything to accommodate. IMHO. You, of course, should be able to marry whomever you want and you should never be subject to discrimination. BUT...you are not exempt from the laws of nature and we shouldn't pretend that your attempts to live your life as you choose changes basic biological facts.

By all means participate in sports but do so on a level playing field. We have men's and women's categories for a reason, to make the competition more equitable and competitive, but Trans-genders would have us toss all of that out. So, here are some options - we either do away with any of the Title IX stuff at all and just simply have one competition where everyone, both sexes, competes OR one where the Trans-gendered have their own separate competition OR we keep it as it is and the Trans-gendered compete according to their chromosomes, not their gender identity.

As it stands now, the Trans-gendered community is trying to have it's cake and eat it too. That's not fair to everyone else. Why should other athletes be forced into unfair competition in order to accommodate such a narrow demographic? Is it really a victory for someone who used to be a male to defeat females? Besides gender, we also currently divide athletes up by ages to account for varying athletic abilities, why not just add Trans-gender as another category?

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
That all aside, you're mostly ignorant because I was in agreement arguing against unfair competition by making this analogy, only to come at me like I'm defending it.

I didn't come at you. I was just trying to show bone structure is something to look at which doesn't have so many levels of grey.

You need to relax, perhaps I'm wrong about the importance of levels
(That's probably coming at you)