3519: Y’all Gay? w/ Ali Clayton and Ever Mainard

[rodimusprime]

I love how Keith immediately got reprimanded for not knowing the right words and then everyone stumbled over their words trying to explain their stances. So good. So funny. So human.

Also the person who said sports was stupid and they kind of hate it... how is that not a slap in the face to the athletes (of all genders) who thought this sporting event was important enough to train for and participate in?

[rodimusprime]

It's behind a paywall but I found this article interesting. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2044949.html

This excerpt especially:

"According to Sports Illustrated, she lost strength and an inch of her height on HRT, making it impossible for her to match her performance.

So how does she perform as a swimmer today?

Let's look first at Ms Thomas's record in the NCAA. While some of her fastest times have been in other competitions, these are the easiest results to access and compare across multiple years and athletes.

All statistics in this article are for "short course yards" races, meaning they were done in a 25-yard pool.

Ms Thomas won the women's 500 yard freestyle race in 4m 33.24s. She came fifth in the 200 yard race, with 1m 43.40s, and eighth in the 100 yard race with 48.40s.

These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking. Though the overall competition saw 27 all-time NCAA records broken, Ms Thomas's times weren't among them."


It seems like conservatives have really framed this argument in a way that makes it seem as if trans-women are dominating cis-women in athletics but that isn't actually happening. In all the hundreds of contests where trans-women do not win there is no real controversy. But if a trans-woman wins even ONE contest it becomes a referendum on fairness in sports.

Feels like we're all being tricked into helping amp up this social issue that isn't actually happening that often. Like how conservatives act like voter fraud caused Trump to have the election stolen from him. There's no real evidence of this vast conspiracy and yet we all end up talking about it because they're acting like it's a huge deal.

[Apia resurrected]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

I love how Keith immediately got reprimanded for not knowing the right words and then everyone stumbled over their words trying to explain their stances. So good. So funny. So human.

Also the person who said sports was stupid and they kind of hate it... how is that not a slap in the face to the athletes (of all genders) who thought this sporting event was important enough to train for and participate in?

I don't hate sports I just never watch any.
But I couldn't resist commenting because that's my sports.

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

... Also the person who said sports was stupid and they kind of hate it... how is that not a slap in the face to the athletes (of all genders) who thought this sporting event was important enough to train for and participate in?

Slaps in the face are so hot right now.

[nordcharonmir]

Paula,
Thank you very much for your contribution to the topic. I have a few questions for you given your expertise that I feel could be illuminating around this topic.

Originally Posted by klika

re: Chemda mentioning male and female bodies - lets not forget that even science has bias. The way things are named and what they're associated with, depends on scientists (back in the day mostly men...!). So just the classification of people/animals that have penises as 'male' is a social construct. As mentioned by Ali or Ever, intersex people can have XX chromosomes and have penises. So even biology/science isn't binary.

I think this may be a straw man? Is the scientific or clinical classification of people/animal males depend on the presence of a penis or is it typically done at the chromosomal level or for a quick and dirty analysis at the gamete level?

Originally Posted by klika

And yes, 'commonly' XY and penis is associate with this and that, but lets not forget how this also influences the (socially constructed) gender people are brought up as and how that in turn influences their biology (babies born with vaginas or XX chromosomes->socialised as girls->discouraged from doing sports/being muscular/active->body activity strengthens bones ->'women' are more prone to osteoporosis; TLDR of an article by Anne Fausto-Sterling The Bare Bones of Sex)

Is it your understanding that chromosomal and DNA patterns are associated with development and cell generation or that they are causal?

Are you familiar with the population level studies done relative to egalitarianism's effect on social sex role demonstrations? This may be informative to the discussion of sex behavior differences. Women's level of osteoporosis substantially outpace men's after menopause and the end of the endogenous production of estrogen (estrogen is very important for bone health). I know you know this but for others men still produce enough estrogen into old age via the aromatase of testosterone presuming no other medical abnormality/issues. This leads Anne Fausto-Sterling's article interesting but not necessarily the full story.

Originally Posted by klika

but brining up again intersex people, what if you have both ovaries and testicles, both active.

I understand that intersex birth defects and other disorders of sex development have a general occurrence of around 0.02% of live births (much lower than Fausto-Sterling's number which included Klienfelter's, sexual dismorphia, etc. in her definition which shows a bit of weaponization of science funding bias) however, I'm not aware of human beings being a species with hermaphrodites (both sets of sex genetals being active). Am I misinformed?

Originally Posted by klika

Re: Lia Thomas - I loved Myq's point (on previous episode), that were were hundred (if not thousands) trans athletes, but because they weren't as successful as Lia, no one cared. And of course, the point of a person from forum: the misogyny mixed with sexism and transphobia on all fronts is so prevalent (considering Lia as a 'man', and ignoring trans men athletes because they were 'women').

I think Myq is missing the point that so many are missing here. The division of men's and women's sport is about creating a safe and fair division in which women can compete. Lia is within the rules as they currently are but the rules as they currently stand are a contradiction of the entire point of dividing student athletes by sex. Lia has an unfair physical advantage as a starting place to a degree that is far in extreme to advantages prevalent within the female sex. This is an interesting and I'd argue suspect instance that has been given such undue prominence precisely due to the nature of the sport which having male bodies competing with female bodies does not create an obvious safety issue only a fairness issue. I believe this is why the wrestling instances did not get as much media prominence due to the fact that both the safety and the fairness of male bodies competing with female bodies was to a degree that would be unacceptable to those who control the media's chosen stories for prominence.

As to the point of no one caring about trans men athletes I believe this is entirely consistent with the above. The female bodied athlete does not have an unfair advantage in sport to an unacceptable degree and the safety concern is for the person who has chosen to take the additional risk by competing with male bodied men as opposed to the unwilling/unaware participants who didn't choose to compete with a male bodied woman being the ones at additional safety risk.

[nordcharonmir]

Originally Posted by Apia resurrected

Also that Ever said trans women could get pregnant was a classical case of “I want it to be true so it true”. This is the same problem conservatives run into with their points.

Also, a trans woman athlete doesn’t get her period for the same reasons.
Is it a plus? Is it a minus?

Think about this from the perspective of a high level athlete.
Timing for example.

Perfectly highlighted "I want it to be true so it true” moment. But I would say this isn't just the same problem conservatives run into, instead it is a problem all people run into (not sure political leanings plays a role in this logical failing).

Lack of period is an interesting variable in a huge multi-variant problem. I believe it is an incredibly small factor in the whole equation however it leads down the following path...if an athlete is taking estrogen and test blockers as part of their transition are those taken on a 10 day or weekly cycle? Can this cycle be timed so their last drug test qualifies them but is a full week ahead of competition without medicine (which they aren't even cheating the prescription window just exploiting biology)?

Originally Posted by Apia resurrected

Also I learned that it’s wrong to say you need a woman and a man to get pregnant even if you just think about the biological functions because the terms man and woman are alsways used the way the person identifies themselves.

Dan Savage says something like : “Vagina havers and penis havers” to avoid it.

I wonder if it would be ok to say: a XX chromosome person and a XY chromosome person.

Because the chromosomes stay the same no matter if there was a transition or not.

Even though the supreme court nominee can't answer this simple question of what a woman is, here is the definition...an adult female human. Female is defined by the chromosomes. Thus, an adult of the human species with XX chromosomes is a woman. Therefore, by definition and by proper use of the English language you can just call people women and men.

I'm in no way against honoring peoples pronouns and even calling them by the wrong sex just being respectful of them as people but words still have meanings and we have to be able to use words or we will loose the ability to accurately communicate with each other.

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

It seems like conservatives have really framed this argument in a way that makes it seem as if trans-women are dominating cis-women in athletics but that isn't actually happening. In all the hundreds of contests where trans-women do not win there is no real controversy. But if a trans-woman wins even ONE contest it becomes a referendum on fairness in sports.

Feels like we're all being tricked into helping amp up this social issue that isn't actually happening that often. Like how conservatives act like voter fraud caused Trump to have the election stolen from him. There's no real evidence of this vast conspiracy and yet we all end up talking about it because they're acting like it's a huge deal.

Why are people on this forum so convinced all the sudden that conservatives control the media? Do you really think Lia is the first trans woman to ever win ONE contest? Do you think there may be additional reasons why this particular instance is being highlighted? This is right inline with my last post which I present below for Rod:

Originally Posted by nordcharonmir

I think Myq is missing the point that so many are missing here. The division of men's and women's sport is about creating a safe and fair division in which women can compete. Lia is within the rules as they currently are but the rules as they currently stand are a contradiction of the entire point of dividing student athletes by sex. Lia has an unfair physical advantage as a starting place to a degree that is far in extreme to advantages prevalent within the female sex. This is an interesting and I'd argue suspect instance that has been given such undue prominence precisely due to the nature of the sport which having male bodies competing with female bodies does not create an obvious safety issue only a fairness issue. I believe this is why the wrestling instances did not get as much media prominence due to the fact that both the safety and the fairness of male bodies competing with female bodies was to a degree that would be unacceptable to those who control the media's chosen stories for prominence.

As to the point of no one caring about trans men athletes I believe this is entirely consistent with the above. The female bodied athlete does not have an unfair advantage in sport to an unacceptable degree and the safety concern is for the person who has chosen to take the additional risk by competing with male bodied men as opposed to the unwilling/unaware participants who didn't choose to compete with a male bodied woman being the ones at additional safety risk.

For the tangent around voter fraud, this is too deep a subject I think for this forum but I invite you to familiarize yourself with an introduction to Statistics and revisit some of the counties in contention's anomalies and see what you think. Is it possible all those anomalies occurred without any funny business all favoring one candidate? Yes, but is that the likely explanation once you understand basic statistics?

[shoebootie]

I don't think "the worst male swimmer" would be the "best female swimmer." I don't think it translates like that. Within that timeframe, any athlete could practice and train hard to improve their standings if that's their passion.

Also I laughed a LOT at big ol' salami nipples... I always try to joke with doctors and they never like it. Imma keep doing it though.

[Sparrow]

my urologist’s exam rooms have little whiteboards. they always leave a dry erase marker on it, but are also unamused at my doodles?! lame. and ya know what? i wouldn’t sit on the doctor rolly chair if it were not the most smooth comfortable glide known to man.

[Sparrow]

what i’m saying is i’m a terror alone in a medical setting.

[shoebootie]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

what i’m saying is i’m a terror alone in a medical setting.

Don’t forget to steal shit!